Sometimes a little snake can turn into a sea serpent that takes you on a transformative journey. Sometimes a snake is just a snake. Like all symbols, snakes and serpents can symbolize many different things, even direct opposites. Think of a sacred snake speaking divine truths to a Delphic oracle changing into an untrustworthy snake tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden. On my journey I met many a sneaky ‘snake in the grass’ and numerous enablers - the ‘snake handlers.’ Some of them are fresh in my mind because my 2016 Berry St Essay is being published in a book about the 200-year history of the essay by the Unitarian Universalist in-house Skinner Press. They recently sent proofs of the essay for approval.
Experienced snake handlers, they have sandwiched the essay in between two masterful snake in the grass’ comments. If you are trying to figure out how liberals institutionalize oppression, both comments are worthy of exegeses - a close reading in cultural context. One comment is listed as a footnote but is placed at the end of the essay because, according to a press editor, it is too long to lay out in normal footnote form, which gives the footnotes writer - a master ‘snake in the grass’ - the last word. I invite you to read my Dec. 5 blog post “Putting Fragments into a Narrative” for my ‘last word’ on that. The other comment is a legal contract that hisses out why the essay itself is printed in redacted form. Like all great ‘snake in the grass’ lies, it is true enough to be believable. Let me tell you what it means that “all parties related to the authorship or publication of the Berry St. Essay agreed to the editing and redactions,” from my point of view.
When I finished delivering the Berry St. Essay, “If Our Secrets Define Us” (Text) (Video) the 400 UU ministers and I were en-tranced within a sacred moment. It felt as if the sacred snakes from the divine underground had risen up my spine, spoken in my ear, and came out of my mouth. The room vibrated with the power of each and every person in that room feeling the energy of released secrets that we all held. When I was finished 30-40 colleagues circled the stage and bowed to me in my prophetic role. We do not tend to be a bowing people. I cried. Afterwards, about 80% of those present wrote of their appreciation. Part of that relief and appreciation came from the fact that I named names of a few who took advantage of the power of their role as ministers to satisfy their own sexual desires. As the main editor (who is not a snake handler) of the soon to be printed book writes, it was a risk to name names because our professional guidelines stated that we could not speak ill of a colleague in public.
Indeed, colleagues before me had ruined their careers by doing so. I had weighed the risks. I was near the end of my career and had a trusting relationship with the congregation that employed me (FUUN) who knew what I was writing, so decided it was worth the personal risk. That congregation was healing from what we called ‘ministerial sexual misconduct’ but still could not say the name of the minister who had harmed them. Inspired by the Harry Potter books, they started calling their own historical villain ‘he who must not be named’. I had observed that saying his name out loud felt like taking a draft of strong medicine for some of the people most hurt by him, helping empower some and heal others. Speaking his name also affected those not harmed. The more the community could talk honestly about abuse in their past, the better we worked together in supporting one another with both practical matters and maturing spiritually. I had given much of my life to the Unitarian Universalist tradition and suspected it finally had the moral and spiritual maturity to face these secrets in the name of healing and integrity. For most people that was true. But of course, there were a few poisonous snakes out there who struck back.
When the ‘footnote’ was first published on the UU Minsters’ Association (UUMA) website, the person who had been found guilty of misconducting while serving FUUN called the UUMA to request a meeting with me. Mediated by two colleagues, we had a confidential online conversation. I can say he asked me to redact his name, and his comments reinforced my empathy for the victims/survivors I had worked with for more than 10 years. I refused his request. I heard through unofficial circles that he submitted a complaint against me to our professional association per our procedure. I heard no more until I received a call from FUUN’s insurance company that I had been served with a notice of threat to sue.
The insurance company told me that the UUMA had been served the same notice – it was their insurance company that had informed the church’s. I emailed the UUMA Executive Director (E.D.) to ask about it. It took a few days before he returned my message and before I received the actual threat to sue notice. To make a long story short, old patterns that I noted in the essay arose. The E. D. of the UUMA, with the UUA’s encouragement was led by the insurance lawyers. Some of the people on the church board I served became anxious and assumed that the insurance lawyers offered the only relief. They wisely wanted to protect their respective institutions but never explored how to protect them while staying true their missions and values.
The insurance companies and E. D. exerted enormous pressure on me and the church board to settle quickly. Not only did they not want to know the truth or strategize how to improve our systems, they advised me not to show anyone the documents that backed up the history I had recounted, saying that that was not the point. Their point was to make the threat go away so as to save money, realistically stating that giving a few thousand dollars and agreeing to redactions was much cheaper than going to court which would cost them much more, even if we proved I told the truth. I tried to find another lawyer who would work towards our mission, but had only time to interview two, neither who were helpful. I thought we were still in negotiations when I was told by the E.D. that I had to sign the agreement because my church’s insurance company had signed it. The church board leadership was relieved. After I signed our insurance company and I discovered that we were both lied to by the E. D. of the UUMA. The UUMA lawyer said it was a communication misunderstanding but that it was too late. They had sent the money to the abuser and it was done. The misconducting minister skillfully manipulated the UUMA, FUUN and me to remain ‘he who must not be named.’
It took me and the UUMA board a few years to figure out that the E. D. did not keep his board well informed. For instance, he did not give the board the verifying documents I had sent to them. He told me the agreement did not allow us to talk about the negotiations with anyone, including the UUMA board, who thought I was not co-operating with them. By the time we could unpack those pressured few months, the E. D. no longer worked for the UUMA. One snake in the grass I no longer had to deal with.
It took time for me to understand how the church’s board had regressed, as so many do who respond to old unresolved traumas. With that understanding we could work through the anxiety together and govern effectively again. We eventually found the threatening minister’s separation agreement where he signed that he would never sue the church or its board. We also found evidence that he had threatened to sue others and won.
With the help of other courageous prophets among us, my colleagues learned the truth of this escapade. We now see it as an example of how misconductors had long used the same ‘threat of suit’ tactic to keep their name out of UUA records so that they could continue to abuse the people they were supposed to serve. The UUMA withdrew the membership of the minister who threatened to sue because he used it to bypass the complaint process. A snake in the grass was finally held accountable. They then changed our ethical guidelines and procedures so that we can name misconductors and deal with them and the victims in a well-boundaried and compassionate manner.
Yes, I agreed to the redactions. I was also lied to by a snake-in the grass and pressured by a poisonous system using greed and fear to manipulate people. Reading about the agreement reminds me how trapped I felt at the time. But so much good has come out of that ugly episode. Many more people in the UU universe understand how overlapping oppressive systems support abuses of power and have found ways to create better systems, including finding lawyers that help support our religious values. As soon as I retired and could no longer put the church at risk, I posted the unredacted versions on my web site. If I am ever threatened by a lawsuit again, I will know what kind of lawyer to call, and how to raise money to pay them. I am now free to go to court, if needed. I do hope that the Skinner Press can someday learn these hard-won lessons so that they no longer spend precious time handling the snakes when they could be better living our shared mission and values in print.