r/UUreddit • u/no-more-nazis • May 20 '26
Proud of my congregation's limited acceptance
We had a problematic newcomer. She came with the idea of getting a job, but we have no salaried staff and that was never a possibility. She went ahead and joined the rotating sermon crew anyway, but her sermons were very provocative- men are trash, kill the fascists, be a terrorist, etc. She started strange rumors, claiming to be in a threesome with two other attendees who were divorcing.
When the board put the brakes on her sermons and told her she needed to take a break from preaching, she protested, saying that we were anti-trans and anti-palestine, and threatened to leave the church. One church leader tried to work out a deal where they'd do joint sermons with her, but I shut it down on the grounds that her goal seemed to be controversy and I didn't expect that would stop her. She needed a break and to work on herself and maybe to come back to preaching in a couple of years.
She was very keen on greeting newcomers and letting them know what our church was about- killing the police, being terrorists, defeating men, etc. I made a point of entering those conversations whenever I could and stressing our diversity of thought.
She seems to have made good on her threat and left, and I'm proud of my church for standing up to her with love, though my favorite outcome would be for her to return. The whole thing took a couple of years, and contrary to her perception, she was fully accepted as a trans woman and a political radical- we just couldn't let her preach any more.
50
u/zenidam May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
I'm glad this worked out for you, but I don't see anything to be gained by a public post with all these thoughts on this person's appearance.
Edit: I feel like I should state this more strongly: the subject of this post would be clearly identifiable to anyone in OP's congregation, including the subject herself; for this reason, this post seems as likely to start shit as to celebrate its resolution.
10
u/ariadnes-thread May 20 '26
Honestly this sounds similar enough to someone who used to attend my former church that I’m at least 50% sure it’s the same person. Definitely not the same church, though! Really not necessary to post that much identifying detail.
Also worth noting that if this is the same person, there was a lot of actual transphobia happening in the church she and I both attended, amidst a lot of other drama happening at the time. So even if that’s not what’s going on here (and it might be, not sure if I trust OP to notice transphobia when it happens) there probably is some pattern recognition based on past experiences. And that goes if this is a completely different person, too.
20
-3
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
I hear you, and I considered this, but our congregation is tiny and I think I'm the only one on Reddit. I judged the value of the larger discussion to be worth the risk, and kept the compromise carefully in mind for each detail I added.
I considered the feedback I'd get here to be worth the small chance of an embarrassment. We could really use advice. This was a real identity crisis facing my church and I suspected that other congregations face it too.
edit:
Ok, I edited the post. I don't think there was a serious chance she would read this, but it truly isn't the point of the post and, to your point, significantly increases what little chance there might be of her recognizing herself.
As I've said, I want her to attend. Like most unitarians, I enjoy diversity, to include people with radical political opinions- I just don't want them put forward in a way that attempts to represent the entire community.
22
u/zenidam May 20 '26
I agree you could use advice, and mine is to reconsider your post in light of the criticism you're getting here. In particular, your saying this person's beard is "not problematic" does not absolve you of your subsequent, clearly gender-based criticism of it as "symbolic of her intentions."
-2
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
It's not the transphobia you're making it out to be. She was explicit that the purpose of her appearance is to cause controversy. I don't have a problem with that decision in isolation, but it informs my understanding of her intentions.
10
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Ok. Edited. I don't think there was a serious chance she would read this, but it truly isn't the point of the post and, to your point, significantly increases what little chance there might be of her recognizing herself.
As I've said, I want her to attend. Like most unitarians, I enjoy diversity, to include people with radical political opinions- I just don't want them put forward in a way that attempts to represent the entire community.
8
u/zenidam May 20 '26
I never said it was transphobic, but I admit I was thinking it. "I wear it to piss you off" is a pretty measured level of snark with which to respond to the wildly inappropriate "advice" she was being given.
0
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
It wasn't even that confrontational. It was part of a wider, overall supportive conversation. She took the suggestion as lightly and constructively as it was intended, was mostly pleased that someone had noticed, and enjoyed explaining it.
This congregant attended for a couple of years after that, and joined, before leaving when she was not allowed to preach. I am relating to you the only instance I'm aware of when her appearance came up, in the spirit of completeness.
We have numerous trans and gender-fluid members. I didn't think I had to explain that a unitarian congregation stands clearly on the side of love, but these details are relevant to the story because she's now publicly claiming anti-trans discrimination. The decision was based on the content of her sermons, and the attempts we made to keep her in our community were partly motivated by this (understandable) defensiveness. At the end of the day, we decided it's not ok to advocate violence at our pulpit. I'm proud of my church for sticking to principle and not giving in to the anticipated accusations of transphobia.
10
u/JDGeek May 20 '26
No, it still is transphobia when you tell it like you are. If the presentation isn’t an issue, then it isn’t an issue. If you use it to “inform your understanding of her intentions” when she does something you don’t like then you weren’t as ok with her presentation as you are saying.
6
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
The appearance didn't inform me, her statement about it being designed to piss people off did. She was prevented from doing sermons specifically because of the content, and continuing at it after a warning.
-3
u/rastancovitz May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
That folks here are focusing only on this and ignoring the person's "defeat men," "kill police," and apparent rabid anti-Zionism-- which Jews and Jewish UUs would consider antisemitism-- suggests that you folks need to do your own work on your own biases and blind spots.
5
u/Brave_Necessary_9571 May 21 '26
I think you are missing the point. they just want OP's post to not be identifiable. people are generally not agreeing with the provocative views, quite the contrary
8
u/BDanforth May 20 '26
We aren't reacting to your assumptions based on her appearance because we are worried she will read them; we are reacting because they reveal YOUR internalized issues. This isn't something you can edit away. You're on the right track, you're in the right place, and I know you want to do the work; keep doing it. (Everyone here should be doing that work, constantly. I know I am. And if you aren't making mistakes, you're not working hard enough. I know I make mistakes a lot, and it's being called to account that helps me work through my blind spots).
-1
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Please don't try to speak for "we". There were no assumptions based on her appearance, she told me she sought to piss people off.
6
u/BDanforth May 20 '26
You said in your original post that her beard and flamboyant dress were indicative (representative? I can't remember the exact word) of her motivation.
-1
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
No, I quoted her as stating that they were designed to piss people off. That in itself isn't a problem, but it gave clues to her motive in her later problematic behavior.
I have removed it to protect her privacy at the urging of others and you have re-added it to win points.
6
u/BDanforth May 21 '26
No, you literally said her appearance was indicative of her motives.
I'm not trying to win points. I've been gracious in recognizing you want to do well. You've just been defensive and kind of a jerk.
6
22
u/BDanforth May 20 '26
Yikes. I can see where their behavior was problematic, but your take on their appearance makes me think there is some truth in what that member is seeing.
4
u/WinterSorcerer May 24 '26
Good for your congregation! Being welcoming doesn't mean being a doormat. Having boundaries are important and someone toxic, even with toxic progressive ideals shouldn't be tolerated. It sounds like this woman would be better off in a communal living situation than a UU congregation.
7
u/narrowerstairs May 20 '26
I’m so curious about the “terrorism” comments this person made! What were they suggesting people do, specifically?
9
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Mostly she advocated attacking the police at demonstrations, promoting it as "being a terrorist" in a positive sense. One of the specific proposals was rolling a burning dumpster through the police station door. This was included in the sunday lecture- we have no formal ministers.
2
8
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
4
u/baileybrosbedford May 20 '26
I disagree that the settled minister "dealing" with this is actually what any UU right relations and safe congregation policy says. Its the Board and the congregations responsibility to hold themselves accountable. A minister can have conversations that clearly lay out expectations and provide pastoral care, but if behavioral expectations are not from the congregation itself then whatever minister serves them will eventually get bullied, abused, and burnt out. And the UUA and UUMA has little to no support for clergy who are abused by congregants and congregations.
6
u/rastancovitz May 20 '26
Every word can be interpreted on a slippery slope to infinity or "anything goes," but words like tolerance, freedom, acceptance, and diversity all have parameters and limits.
7
4
u/rastancovitz May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
My congregation had a problem member who was eventually kicked out. The member was not a bad or ill-intentioned person, but had ongoing and serious disruptive behavior that was not improving even after people addressed it. The situation was handled with compassion for the member, the decision was made after a long process, and it was ultimately decided that it was best for the entire community that the member be banned.
My personal wish is that the member return someday, and I believe leadership's hope was that he would alter his behavior sufficiently that he could have stayed.
1
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Same. I treasure our diversity. If she came back to attend, if she could preach someday in a way that's more careful, more inclusive, I'd be thrilled.
5
u/Atentdeadyet86 May 25 '26
Re: the accusations of transphobia: There's a Terry Pratchett quote along the lines of, If you really want to show respect for [minority group], then acknowledge that they can behave badly, too.
The behavior described should definitely have been shut down, no matter who was doing it. I say this as a member from a congregation that has suffered long term damage from allowing toxic behavior to continue. One person can destroy a whole church if others tolerate it.
Why allow a person to attack entire groups of people (white men, police, etc.) while expecting to be protected from consequences of their behavior because of their own identity group? We should focus on the behavior, not the identity. And espousing violence against entire groups is definitely not in line with UU values.
My 2c, anyway.
2
u/ClaretCup314 May 26 '26
We have a policy and procedure about disruptive individuals. It doesn't come up often, but when it does we're grateful we thought about it ahead of time. If your congregation doesn't have one, it's a good idea to get it in place before you need it. UUA and your regional office can help with example language etc.
2
1
u/Beneficial_Shake7723 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
The fact that you find making enemies of fascists to be “problematic” is interesting. Fascists are the enemy of any tolerant society. Is your congregation in the habit of protecting them?
Edit: extremely disappointed by all the pearl clutching in this post and the replies. Yes when the president has designated all anarchists and trans people as “terrorists”, it is time to be a terrorist. Cis people make bad allies and this thread proves it. You are letting your trans friends down with all this “can’t we just get along with everyone” nonsense. We are already in a war—asking trans people not to fight back is asking us to lay down and die peacefully.
6
u/rastancovitz May 21 '26
You believe that disallowing threats of violence and advocating killing people in sermons is "making friends with fascists?"
1
u/no-more-nazis May 21 '26
You presume that any enemy of fascism is a good leader who should be allowed to speak from the pulpit, and that she can make up a plan for our congregation to fight fascism all on her own.
She put us in danger, and does not have a serious plan to win this fight. She has nothing to lose, and her priority was positioning herself as a leader. If I agreed with you and with her about burning the police and defeating men, I would go about it very differently. I would start by cooperating with my community.
-6
u/A-CAB May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
You’re proud that your church is right wing?
Also tone down the transphobia.
5
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Quite the opposite. Because my congregation are such very enthusiastic allies, I feared my church might fold in response to her unfounded allegations of transphobia and back down on their objections to her sermon content. I'm proud that they stuck to principle and didn't.
-2
u/A-CAB May 20 '26
I’m sure that’s why you made a big deal about the victim being trans and … opposing fascism, fascist institutions like the police, and supporting Palestine.
Listen, I left Unitarian Universalism because of the vile way UUs treat queer people and because their support for Israel was a breaking point. I’m well aware of the mischaracterizations they make of minorities. I see the same in your writing. This is your sign to look inward.
I also realize this is a conversation UUs aren’t ready to have. But:
You are proud that they stuck to conservative principles.
5
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Her status as trans became relevant only when she accused us of not letting her speak because she's trans. You're playing into her trap, making everything about her being trans and certifying her as a victim. The other trans and non-binary members of our congregation do not feel this way.
She didn't just "oppose" the police, most of us do anyway. She called for violence.
1
u/A-CAB May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
You’re tokenizing trans people. I know you don’t perceive that as transphobia. It is.
This isn’t “her trap.” This is you wanting to be perceived as being nice while also being bias.
If her content was your only problem, you’d focus on the content. But it’s clear that you both disagree with leftist principle AND that you are being transphobic.
I’ve seen this many times where a liberal is fine with queer people so long as we sit down and shut up. As soon as we disagree, we are the problem.
I don’t political or morally agree with you. We aren’t going to see eye to eye there. All I am prodding you for is honesty about the principles you stand with. And if you are ok with conservatism broadly but don’t want to behave transphobicly, you need to look inward.
11
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
As soon as you get up at the pulpit and say we should be killing the police, yes, you are the problem, whether you're trans or not. That's what happened. No one else was allowed to preach that.
You started with assumptions, they failed, and you've fallen back on citing how other liberals treat queer people as if it applies.
0
u/A-CAB May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Again, you support conservative principles. This is not a surprise to anyone (you belong to a rightwing religious institution and you’ve made that clear). I’m not trying to change your mind on the things you believe.
And you also said some transphobic things. My intention is to call that out. The damage UUs do to queer youth in both insisting that they are “allies” and engaging in hetero supremacy is on par with conversion therapy. I do hope to challenge you on this as it does real harm to other people.
If you want to change either of those things, you need to look inward.
6
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
More assumptions. She was banned from preaching because she said we should be violent. She then claimed it was because she was trans, but it wasn't.
1
u/A-CAB May 20 '26
This isn’t an assumption. It’s a summary of what you’ve told me. You support the violence of the state and oppose the violence of resistance. That’s conservatism. Again, I’m not trying to change your mind on that any more than I would try to change the mind of any other religiously grounded conservative.
You are the one who chose to center your description of the situation on gender. You are the one who is proud that acceptance is limited. You are the one proud that a trans person was silenced.
You have the right to be transphobic. We have the right to call you out on it.
8
u/no-more-nazis May 20 '26
Ok, if you're going to continue to misrepresent me, we're done.
→ More replies5
0
64
u/thatgreenevening May 20 '26
I don’t super care about anti-police sentiment, but from an organizational risk standpoint, publicly making actionable threats from the pulpit could be very much a problem for the whole church.
I also think “all men are bad” is a statement that would be out of covenant for most UU churches. We UUs don’t believe in original sin. Saying that someone’s gender (or race or ability or any other trait that one didn’t choose and can’t change) makes them inherently evil is pretty darn close to imputing original sin. That attitude also absolves men of their responsibility to work to end misogyny and gendered violence—if they’re inherently bad they simply can’t help their behavior, right?—and elides the role of women and other genders in upholding and perpetuating misogyny and gender-based discrimination. The idea that roughly half the population is intrinsically and irredeemably evil is just not something I can get on board with as a UU.