On Boundaries and Dogmatism: A Reply to Rebecca Mattis

Since Todd Eklof first published The Gadfly Papers, much of the resulting rhetoric of his supporters, hereby referred to as “gadflies,” has been to accuse various people, from the UUA itself to UUA staff and even marginalized and young Unitarian Universalists, of being dogmatic and authoritarian. Both petition candidates for UUA Board this year, Rebecca Mattis and Beverly Seese, have asserted it as a reason they are running.

This is rarely defended by the gadflies; rather, the trend is to either cherry pick incidents they think back up their narrative, or else simply assert that because their narrative is not taken seriously by the UUA, that they are being censored. But is there any substance to their claims?

Recently, Mattis published an email she received as evidence of the supposed dogmatism and authoritarianism of our movement. I want to examine this email and what it tells us about the gadflies.

I will here assume that the dictionary definitions of authoritarian and dogmatism are accepted by Mattis:

authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom

dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others

Mattis sent an unsolicited announcement of her campaign to multiple Unitarian Universalist congregations. She received the following email in response:

Rebecca,

You recently contacted the office administrator at my congregation, _________ UU, with a request to put your ad in our newsletter. I want you to know that our congregation supports the marginalized in our community and fully believes in the direction our UUA is leading us towards a world that is more just, equitable, and compassionate. We do not believe in your fake and thinly veiled platform of hate and exclusion. I will say this directly, do not contact my congregation again for this or for any other reason.

Warmly,

Rev. ___________

Now Mattis does not give any detail on why she feels this email is authoritarian or dogmatic, so, rather than guess, I will, instead, apply the dictionary definitions from before.

Is the email authoritarian? In order to make the case that it is, Mattis would have to show that the unnamed minister is acting with regard to some central authority, or else that the minister themselves consider themselves the authority. Mattis has proven neither. I suspect she would say that the central authority here is the UUA, but the minister does not appear to be acting at the orders of the UUA, or under order of punishment if they didn’t send this email. Mattis herself admits there are plenty of congregations that probably just deleted the email without response. If this minister choose to publish Mattis’s email, there is little the UUA could do since congregational communications are an autonomous issue.

Further, the email does not limit Mattis or her personal freedom except in asserting they do not wish to receive email from her. I suspect Mattis and her campaign will continue despite this email.

The claim that this email is authoritarian is a strange one, dependent on being able to guess the motives of the minister, an ad hominem attack. It completely leaves out the possibility that the minister just simply doesn’t agree with or want to associate with Mattis or that they support her opponent, Rev. Suzanne Fast.

So, then, is this email dogmatic? I can’t say with one hundred percent certainty it’s not because there’s not enough information. But there’s also not enough information to claim that it is. In order to make that case, Mattis would have to show that the minister has refused to listen to any other perspectives and is simply being rigid in their thinking. She has not even attempted to make that case, but, as with the accusation of being authoritarian, seems to be doing some mind reading based on her own beliefs.

We know nothing about this minister, how much study of the issues they have done, and what has led them to this point. The truth is we’re asked to accept that they’re dogmatic simply because their viewpoint does not align with Mattis’s.

In essence, what we are shown here is an email that Mattis is angry about because they refused to provide her a platform. And she assumes the only reasons they could have refused to provide her a platform are authoritarianism and dogmatism, which seems an arrogant assertion to make without knowing anything about the personal and professional circumstances of this minister and their congregation. Instead, I propose that there’s not enough information given to say one way or another because Mattis assumes any reader of good faith will agree with her without having to explain.

What’s really going on here is that this minister set a boundary on who they will associate with and how they will communicate and use their resources. Jake Morrill, in his recent book The Boundaries Workbook, defines boundaries as “the intentional choices you make to define yourself.” This minister and, by extension, their congregation, set a boundary that they do not wish to associate with or receive email from Mattis’s campaign. Mattis does not have to agree with this decision, but this simple setting of a boundary is far from the authoritarianism and dogmatism she believes it shows.

Furthermore, a person setting boundaries is under no obligation to explain those boundaries to the person, or to debate their boundaries. The minister already provided more of an explanation than they were obligated. They have set the boundary and they are free to take action to enforce it in reasonable ways, such as blocking on email if Mattis did not respect the boundary.

Morrill says that, when a person sets boundaries, it’s not to gain the approval of someone else, and the boundaries “apply regardless of whether that person will behave perfectly.” Morrill suggests that people are in love with their own sense of virtue and will behave in unwanted ways to get you to renounce your boundary.

You can expect all kinds of negative reactions when you clearly set boundaries. And you can lovingly see them as signs of anxiety in someone else, as they realize how serious you are about living in a new way.

This is an interesting lens to hold up to Mattis’s complaint about this minister’s email. It really is a relatively mild communication, clearly setting up the boundary and a brief reason why. But Mattis sees the very fact that this minister does not want to hear from her as evidence of something much more nefarious. There is no possibility allowed for a third reason.

Indeed, I can think of many other reasons the minister may choose to set this boundary. They may genuinely disagree with Mattis and her words. They may have had conflict with people Mattis associates with. They may see this as an extension of the larger fight in the United States over what is often mislabeled as Critical Race Theory. They may simply believe Rev. Fast is a better candidate for the position.

I could add many more reasons that don’t involve authoritarianism or dogmatism. But suffice it to say Mattis is very far from showing that this simple setting of a boundary amounts to anything worse.

What is interesting about Mattis raising this as proof of the UUA’s dogmatism and authoritarianism is that she seems to see any boundary setting around the beliefs, activities, and behavior of the gadflies as being nefarious in nature. What I see in this post is her saying: There is no valid reason to not provide her and other gadflies a platform. And calling her opponents authoritarian and dogmatic is a tool of emotional manipulation that she hopes will convince people to support her without having to defend the assertion.

And, yet, there are plenty of reasons the UUA, a private organization, might choose to exercise its freedom of association. Unless you believe that the UUA is obligated to provide a platform to any dissenting viewpoint, then it is the duty of the person making the positive claim to show why their view should be heard. And given the gadflies don’t seem to be advocating for Westboro Baptist Church to be invited in to speak during plenary when they protest General Assembly, I can only assume they accept that there are times when freedom of association must be accepted.

The truth is that the UUA (and many UUs) accept many current theories about antiracism; there is no such thing as a universal theory of antiracism because, like many fields, there is active disagreement and debate. And neither Todd Eklof nor any other minister has been disciplined for their views, but for behavior that arose from those beliefs. Mattis complains about authoritarianism and dogmatism even as she is has the right to run in the UUA Board election and is availing herself of it. And, like Jay Kiskel last year, I have no doubt that, if she loses, Mattis will blame the loss on censorship and lack of democracy through the various blogs that support her, even as a majority of delegates vote one way.

The possibility that a large portion of Unitarian Universalists disagree with them does not seem to factor in. There has to be some darker plot.

Make no mistake: they are not asking for freedom of speech; Mattis and other gadflies already have that. What they are asking is that you relinquish your freedom of association and listen to everything they have to say, even as they run against highly qualified, vetted, and well-respected Unitarian Universalist ministers.

I feel I cannot write this post without also briefly exploring a portion of Mattis’s candidate statement that is illuminating:

Our faith has always encouraged us to do good work in love and in freedom. But, like many UUs, I am grieved to see the direction our UU leadership has taken in the past several years. The UUA has gone from being an organization that supports its member congregations in our liberal religious work, to a highly centralized and insular group, disengaged from individual congregations, and disturbing in its dogmatism. This departure from the heritage roots of our denomination has brought such distress that sometimes I wondered if I should leave the church…

Mattis’s romanticization of the past shows a shocking ignorance of Unitarian Universalist history. Historians such as Mark Morrison-Reed, Mark Harris, and Cynthia Tucker have explored, in great detail, how our movement has been far from a perfect organization. BIPOC, the working class and poor people, and women have all, at one time or another, been explicitly excluded from our religious movements. Humanists, Pagans, and transcendentalists have had to fight to prove they are “real” Unitarian Universalists. BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, and polyamorous people still routinely face discrimination in our congregations, and youth and young adults are often neglected at a time when their voices are desperately needed. And we’re only beginning to understand how ableism, neuro-discrimination, saneism, and fatphobia exists within our movement.

Indeed, a hundred years ago, Mattis’s candidacy would have been controversial simply because of her gender.

We don’t have a great track record of welcoming people into our movement, but it’s not for the reason Mattis thinks.

The temptation to over-romanticize the past is one that should not be unfamiliar to those who have watched our political situation over the last decade. Indeed, it’s been a cornerstone of the MAGA movement. What it does is set up a paradise long gone that must be reclaimed, an innocent Eden of sorts that has been sullied by the things I don’t like.

The truth is there has never been a time when the UUA and its predecessor organizations were anything goes, and even many of those we now welcome with open arms were once excluded from our religious movement. And the idea that the UUA is authoritarian and dogmatic simply because they are responding to what marginalized people are telling them we need is insulting and centering the needs of those who are already comfortable.

Let me make this clear: current UUA efforts are attempts to rectify mistakes of our imperfect past, something we desperately need if we are to be effective in the current political situation.

But I also don’t claim that the current UUA is a paradise. Marginalized people, myself included, often feel like we have to fight to have any sort of place in our movement. The current move towards anti-racism and anti-oppression is because we have not yet built utopia.

I don’t know what Mattis’s experience with UUA staff has been, but, though I have not always agreed with them, there has never been a time when I felt they didn’t have the well-being of my congregations as their priority. There are multiple staff members that have taken calls from me on extremely short notice in order to consult with an issue. If anything, they are overworked and undercompensated.

In fact, UUA staff members have visited congregations I’ve served at least once a year every year I’ve been a fellowshipped minister. To call them insular is quite misleading.

But the UUA also does not force itself on congregations. I know of at least one recent situation where they completely backed off from a congregational conflict where they could have helped because the congregation made it clear they did not want them there. They are also dependent on staff and leaders to call them as issues arise, and for those same leaders to be open to their help.

I do not claim the UUA is perfect, and I am quite vocal when I feel like it’s not. However, I do feel we are better for its existence as a central way for Unitarian Universalist congregations to organize.

I do not see our antiracism and antioppression efforts as evidence that this is not the case. Rather, I see them as reflective of an organization trying to help its member congregations meditate on how to continue being relevant in a world that desperately needs our message.

I have frequently been puzzled by the resistance of Unitarian Universalists to anything that resembles authority and their quickness to label it authoritarianism. I see this more evidence of the anxiety of our members and congregations surrounding our own power and culpability in the world. The answer isn’t to renounce that power, but to harness it in a way that helps us become a stronger faith movement.

And I think the UUA is doing a great job of this. Not perfect by any means, but opening the doors for greater possibility in the future.