UU BITE Model

B.I.T.E Model Analysis of the Unitarian Universalist Association 

By 

Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof, Unitarian Minister 

April 19, 2024 

The following analysis is based upon my personal experiences and opinions as a Unitarian minister for the past 25 years. The BITE model was developed by cult and mind control expert Dr. Steven Hassan to describe cults’ specific methods to recruit and maintain control over people. “BITE” stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control. Not every group or relationship uses every one of these methods, or they may use some more fully and effectively than others. 

BEHAVIOR 

Controlling the behavior of others is difficult for the UUA to do, given that Unitarian Universalism has been historically rooted in the ideals of individual freedom, congregational autonomy and polity, and human dignity. For the past several years, the UUA leadership has been attempting to change this by creating a punitive culture of fear, intolerance, and shame and to transform itself from a member service organization into what it euphemistically calls a “covenantal” religion. 

Additionally, it has complete control of ministerial education, certification, and placement by which it has slowly infiltrated the leadership of its member congregations, instilling them with a new illiberal ideology and ministers who forbid contradicting views (including books or study groups) to be expressed on church property. 

Older ministers, who have not gone through such indoctrination and who protest or resist this trend, are increasingly accused of causing harm and being “out of covenant,” though which covenant and how they have “broken” it is never defined. Between the UUA’s establishment in 1961 and 2020, only nine ministers had been permanently disfellowshipped (its term for excommunication by having their professional credentials stripped), mostly for sexually or financially inappropriate behavior. Since 2020, five ministers have been disfellowshipped for “bullying” behavior or creating “hostile work environments,” which means they said something somebody in authority disagreed with. Speech is now considered a form of harm and violence. This kind of punitive approach has created a chilling effect that keeps most ministers quiet and, thus, compliant. 

Additionally, in 2020, the UUA began granting ministers “full” Fellowship, rather than what was formally called “final” Fellowship. “Final” meant a minister was free of any further certification requirements. “Full” means they are bound to certain “continuing education” requirements as deemed necessary by the UUA throughout their entire careers. As its 2023  document explaining this change states, “We seek a different system, one based in relationship, development, and a commitment to lifelong learning.” I consider this to mean “lifelong control.” 

The same document offers the following new definition of a minister: 

The term “Minister” applies to those persons: 

• granted fellowship by the MFC [Ministerial Fellowship Committee]; 
• whose self and contextual understanding are as a professional religious leader; and 
• whose work is theologically grounded, expresses Unitarian Universalist values and principles, and reflects commitments to anti-oppression, collective liberation, and ongoing learning. 

To quickly break this down. The first bullet point defies Unitarianism’s more than 500-year tradition of congregational polity, in which only a local congregation can ordain, call, install, and terminate a minister. In addition to violating this exclusive right by authorizing itself, through the UUA’s Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC), to define a minister by its standards, not the local congregation’s, the second bullet point also makes the title a matter of one’s own identity, rather than a congregational/community call. In other words, if one identifies as a minister, one is a minister. In this case, the congregation must recognize what has already been determined (by the MFC). Finally, and most disturbing, is bullet point three, which requires agreement to a particular ideology, in this case, what it calls “anti-oppression,” another euphemism that sounds great at the outset but, in reality, refers to a very narrow-minded and, what some consider, damaging, approach to justice. It also calls for a commitment to “collective liberation,” another euphemism meaning “groupthink,” and, again, for “ongoing learning,” which means reeducation whenever a minister is out of line (this I know personally to be true). 

Currently, the UUA does not have the authority to control or make mandates to congregations. However, by controlling who their ministers are (those who occupy their pulpits and essentially run a congregation), they have infiltrated them, changed their priorities and ideologies, and, through them, are able to silence local dissenters. In my opinion, this is the UUA leadership’s primary method of controlling the behavior of its otherwise autonomous member congregations. 

Case Study #1 

After freely giving away my 2019 book regarding the illiberal turn the UUA has taken, The Gadfly Papers, I was met with immediate, widespread condemnation before anyone could have read it, let alone given it fair consideration. Within 24 hours, two letters when out, signed by hundreds of my colleagues, referring to me and my book as racist, homo- and transphobic, ableist, and classist. Had anything actually been written in the book that corresponds to these claims, such a reaction might have been justified, but to date no one has cited anything in it corroborating these panicked claims, despite numerous requests for those making them to do so. Given the nature of Unitarianism, which is known for having extreme tolerance for dissenting opinions, and for approaching differences in a tolerant manner, and, above all, for respecting a minister’s “freedom of the pulpit,” which extends to their writings and public statements, this response reflects a major behavioral shift, especially among the 500+ ministers who signed these public letters of condemnation. Most shocking, however, is the preamble to the letter that went out to a more general UU audience, explicitly asking Unitarians not to read the book but to trust the ministers who have “seen”, not read, it. 

UUs: please take a moment and read this letter, signed by more than 300 white Unitarian Universalist ministers in response to one of our own colleagues publishing and distributing a racist, transphobic, sexist treatise while we were at General Assembly in Spokane, WA this week. It is one of many responses (several others of which are linked at the top of this blog post), and they all declare that the views espoused in this publication are not representative of who we want to be as UUs. Read these, but please—do not go out and purchase this book out of curiosity. Trust the hundreds of people who have seen it—especially our siblings of color and our trans kin—who have been hurt by this. It’s bad. 

Again, this message was sent in little more than 24 hours after the book was dispersed and reflects an unprecedented and dramatic behavioral change among Unitarian Universalist ministers, particularly in their collective attempt to control the reading habits and thoughts of others. Like many cults, they were discouraged from thinking for themselves and denied access to forbidden information. 

Case Study #2 

After distributing my book in 2019, my colleague and friend, Rev. Richard David offered to be my Good Officer should any formal complaints be lodged against me. A Good Officer is a minister who supports a colleague who might be in professional trouble with the UUA. Davis had been part of the Good Officer program for more than two decades. Yet, as soon as he began expressing public and open support for me, he also began experiencing backlash from the UUA leadership. On August 27, 2019, Davis received his first, rather cordial, communication from a member of the UU Ministers Association Board of Trustees, who had signed a letter of censure against me, expressing concern based on some comments of his that she’d seen online, telling Davis he “seemed to be struggling to clarify your role.” The letter concluded, “Having counseled and debriefed many of our GO colleagues who have done this work, as well as having been in the role myself, I may be a good sounding board.” Davis politely declined the offer. This particular Trustee was among those who had already violated the Board’s own guidelines when issuing a letter of censure to me. 

On September 22, 2019, only two days after giving a sermon in his own pulpit expressing similar concerns as me, and support of me in the process, Davis received a more stern warning from the President of the UUMA Board. 

I am very concerned that your public statements seriously compromise your ability to fulfill that role, which would require you to recuse yourself should someone initiate the accountability process. While the letter of censure isn’t the same as the filing of a formal grievance, there are bound to be some parallels. This could wind up doing Todd a major disservice. 

There is some irony in someone who has violated their own procedural guidelines in issuing a public letter of censure without notice of any complaint or due process, telling a supportive colleague that his support could be a major disservice to a person she’s wrongly condemned. But the point here was to put Davis on notice that he needed to keep his mouth shut. He did not. 

On April 2, 2020, Rev. Davis received a letter signed by the President of the UUMA stating, “I am writing today to inform you that we are removing you from the UUMA’s list of Ratified Chapter Good Officers effectively immediately.” This is a position David had been elected to four times over a period of 27 years. One of the many dubious reasons cited for his removal was, “I am aware that you have advocated in support of Rev. Dr. Eklof through your communications with and preaching within at least two congregations: the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane, WA and the Unitarian Universalist Church of Salem, OR.” 

Again, interfering with what a minister says in what was once considered a free pulpit, by an organization the said minister doesn’t even work for, is a 180-degree shift from the liberal religion’s longstanding values and tradition. This was a clear example of the UUA and UUMA attempting to control his behavior—how, that is, he was to conduct himself as my Good Officer. 

INFORMATION 

During the past ten to fifteen years, the UUA has increasingly reduced the ability of its members to offer input into how the organization operates, along with strictly controlling the flow of information. This has prevented the Association’s members from communicating their thoughts and concerns and from being heard by its leaders. At the same time, it has created a so-called “echo chamber” that has led to the leadership becoming increasingly certain of their unchallenged ideas (and hostile toward those pounding outside the chamber walls). 

Beginning in the late 2000s, the UUA leadership began eliminating the longstanding democratic structures that allowed widespread input from its members across the U.S. It accomplished this primarily by eliminating its many Districts, most comprised of congregations from parts of 3 to 4 States. These districts included a District Office with a District Executive and Office Administrator, shared employees of both the UUA and the District. They also had their own District Board of Trustees who were elected by membership, a District Program Council, and elected District Representation on the UUA’s Board of Trustees. 

By the mid-2010s, the Districts were completely eliminated, the UUA Board of Trustees was shrunk to just seven members, usually selected by a small nominating committee, and elected in uncontested elections. Most recently, the UUA has openly violated its own bylaws, (only a year after they had been reaffirmed by voters at an annual meeting) in order for the Association to effectively select its President and to illegally blocked challengers from running. All of this has resulted in the UUA leadership isolating control into the hands of just a few self-selected individuals running things from Boston, MA. This is by design. As its Moderator stated while speaking before the 2015 General Assembly, “District leaders are imagining other ways of shaping governance. Three districts in the Midwest consolidated into one region two years ago. And eight districts in the south and central Northeast have voted to dissolve and defer governance to the UUA.” 

In addition to only approving of ministers who accept and promote these changes, and publicly punishing and eliminating those who don’t, since around 2021 the UU World magazine completely eliminated its “Letters to the Editor” section. This section was once five to ten pages long. But, after my 2019 book, The Gadfly Papers made many aware of what is happening, a policy was adopted forbidding my name from being published in the magazine, which necessarily eliminated most of the letters expressing concern. Rather than publishing only positive letters, the magazine simply stopped publishing all letters. The result is that now there is no place for feedback, honest or otherwise. Information is one-directional, from the UUA to its members, and has become little more than propaganda. 

THOUGHT 

During the past decade or more, the UUA has fostered and become a culture of intolerance and mind-control. Its leadership has accomplished this by: 

• Eliminating genuine democratic systems and open and honest conversation. 
• Gaining control of ministerial formation and credentialling so that only its proven acolytes are placed within its congregations. These ministers often work to promote the UUA’s new approved ideology, while forbidding dissent in their congregations. 
• Publicly punishing dissenters (i.e., disfellowshipping ministers as “bullies” for saying things they deem “harmful.” 
• And by strongly discouraging the ability to think for oneself. 

All of this has been accomplished by repeatedly referring to what has long been defined as a “liberal” religion, as a “covenantal” religion instead. Although what is meant by “covenant” remains ill-defined (by design), it has been used to attack anyone who says something the powers-that-be dislike by simply declaring those who say such things as, “out of covenant.” The term is, thus, but a euphemistic means of avoiding the word “doctrine,” while condemning heretics. 

Although the UUA now claims it has always been a covenantal religion, this is patently false and is part of a concerted effort to eliminate freedom of thought from its culture by converting to this sanctimonious term, which is ultimately a diminution of individual autonomy and freedom to think for oneself. As Rev. Frederic Muir explicitly stated in his 2012 Berry Street Lecture to UU ministers, “We cannot do both covenant and individualism.” During the 2016 UUA General Assembly, Moderator Jim Keys held up one of Muir’s books while announcing a new task force on re-covenanting. “The Task Force was charged with changing the culture of the UUA from one of a member services administration to one of mutual covenanting,” he said. A 2018 UUA Study Action Issue was approved stating, “Decentering whiteness calls us to decenter individual dignity for our collective liberation.” And, in a 2019 UU World article, UUA President Susan Frederick-Gray also stated that covenant is the “antidote to individualism.” Statements like these are enough to prove both the purpose of this term and that it has only been widely used to define Unitarian Universalism in recent years. 

A commitment to using reason and logic in our decisions and discourse has long been a definitive quality of Unitarian Universalism. To this day, the UUA bylaws still include “Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of mind and spirit,” as one of liberal religion’s primary sources of growth. 

But after I wrote and distributed my book expressing my concerns about the intolerant direction the Association has taken, I and my book were immediately and publicly condemned (within 24 hours) in two letters signed by hundreds of ministers. Both called me and the book “racist, homo -and transphobic, ableist, and classist,” without (not to this day) having cited a statement proving any of these ad hominem accusations. The only reference to any content in my book was my general use of reason to justify my arguments. The day after I began giving my book away, for which I was banned after giving away less than 200 copies, over 300 UU ministers signed a letter stating, “We recognize that a zealous commitment to ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ over all other forms of knowing is one of the foundational stones of White Supremacy Culture.” Another letter, signed about the same time, by 39 “colleagues of color,” stated similarly, “The material in question lacks both respect and compassion, continually asserting that if people of color would only be logical, things would be different. Unfortunately, since racism is not logical, logic cannot be a primary tool in its resolution.” Although I never asserted anything singling out people of color, this was a false means of criticizing my use of sound logic by also insinuating that it is racism (not to mention it is simply bad logic). Two months later, on August 16, 2019, I received a public letter of censure from the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association that likewise did not cite anything in my book, but did say, “We cannot ignore the fact that logic has often been employed in white supremacy culture to stifle dissent, minimize expressions of harm, and to require those who suffer to prove the harm by that culture’s standards.” 

If associating reason and logic with racism and white supremacy isn’t absurd enough, the “colleagues of color” letter of condemnation does the same regarding freedom of speech, stating explicitly, “Ideas and language can indeed be forms of violence, and can cause real harm … The predictable ‘freedom of speech’ arguments are commonly weaponized to perpetuate oppression and inflict further harm.” 

EMOTION 

The emotional control exhibited by the UUA and its leadership, including those leaders planted and recruited in its member congregations, is less overt than the other control modalities previously discussed. In general, since their ideology is so unsubstantiated that they dread exposing it to sound reasoning, everything they do is rooted in runaway emotions, which are now revered as the truest path to truth, especially the emotions of “marginalized” persons, particularly blacks, Latinos, and transgender persons. People who have emotional reactions to hearing things they disagree with are considered to have been genuinely “harmed” by any such statements. The harm, however, is their negative emotional response to being intellectually challenged. The result is a widening culture of fear, shame, and anger. People are afraid to say something that might be misinterpreted, so they keep quiet. They are afraid to be singled out, so they quickly join the mob in its attempts to ruin the reputations and livelihoods of anyone who expresses a dissenting opinion. Most Unitarian Universalists, like anyone of good conscience, are troubled by America’s racist past and its lasting impacts. The UUA now converts this feeling into guilt and shame, strong control mechanisms, especially toward its white members, by teaching that all white people are racists and white supremacists and, indeed, that the UUA itself is a white supremacist organization. 

One example is the UUA’s publication and proliferation of Robin DiAngelo’s unsubstantiated meme, “White Fragility,” which considers all white people to be racists and puts anyone who disagrees into, not a double-bind, nor even a triple-bind, but a quadruple-bind by claiming that no matter how one emotionally responds to being called a racist, no matter what they do or don’t do, proves they suffer from “White Fragility.” The following is a description of the White Fragility workshop presented at the UUA General Assembly in 2017, exactly one year before it published its bestselling book by the same title: 

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves, including argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal. This workshop will provide the perspectives and skills needed for white people to build their racial stamina and create more racially just practice. 

This is emotional control at its worst because it occurs on such a massive scale, this claim that all white people, which represents most the Associations membership, are born with a new kind of original sin that is irredeemable, condemning them to a lifetime of guilt and shame, the primary emotions of cult mind-control. 

Finally, in the Spring of 2019, UU World magazine published an article entitled “After L, G, and B.” Its description stated that, “Listening to transgender and nonbinary people is about respect, relationship, and whether Unitarian Universalism can be the welcoming faith we claim.” Its author speaks of her own lessons learned while relating to her daughter’s transgender girlfriend; explains the different meanings of transgender, binary, intersex, and queer; discusses some of the challenges nonbinary citizens face in the U.S.; the discomfort many trans UUs feel finding a comfortable and supportive home in Unitarian Universalist congregations; and closes by stressing the importance of getting the language right when addressing and supporting persons who are transgender. 

You may be surprised to learn this well-intentioned article was received with much outrage, enough that UUA President Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray issued a prompt apology, stating, “More than anything, I want to acknowledge the harm and pain this article is creating,” further explaining she had also instructed the magazine’s editor to issue an additional apology, which he entitled, “Our Story Hurt People.” Some Facebook posts on the matter also used words like harm, hurt, and pain to describe its impact and called for the Editor’s resignation. Without going into this matter at length, they were angry that a “cisgender” person had written the article rather than a transgender person. 

I bring it up in this section because of what happened shortly thereafter. A UUA staff member sent an almost immediate email addressed to its Pacific Western Region’s board presidents and ministers with the subject, “A note about the UU World article ‘After L, G and B.’” The email explained, “As the article was being planned and written, multiple transgender people asked that the article not be run, that an article written by someone who is actually transgender would be more appropriate.” I shall leave it to you to determine if a magazine editor acts improperly by publishing an article after being asked not to. What troubled me is that the email concluded by instructing its recipients to read a list of complaints about the article and then “actively speak to the harm it does,” to “Read and amplify trans UU voices speaking to why this article is so harmful,” and asks, “If your gender identity matches the gender you were born into (cisgender) and the article seems fine to you even after reading the links above, please do not ask transgender people in your life to explain it to you. That’s a microaggression and it causes harm and exhaustion.” This, to me, is an example of emotional control, an unprecedented act by the UUA leadership to tell ministers and church leaders how they must feel about this event, with the further implication that they are not emotionally qualified to disagree.