Recently, Reverend Daniel Harper posted some constructive criticism about the UU Ministerial Association’s ethical guidelines. He pointed out that, with the phrase that a minister should “strictly respect confidences given me by colleagues and expect them to keep mine” there could be legal and ethical issues in cases involving clergy misconduct.
Robin Edgar’s take on this? Well, remember Robin Edgar’s Rules #2 (everything in black and white) and #3 (any bad news about UUs is proof that UUs are bad). So if one minister has a specific, well-thought criticism about specific wording of the UUMA’s ethical codes, then it’s not only true, but a justification for him to accuse all UU ministers of being collectively corrupt, incompetent and stupid.
Robin Edgar likes to boast that he’s been criticizing UU “injustices, abuses and hypocrisies” for years. Setting aside the fact that many of these “criticisms” stretch the bounds of credibility, not one of them is constructive. His only “positive” recommendation that we can see is to allow any complaint against any minister to be renewed an indefinite number of times, regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it. Why? Because in his black-and-white mindset, UU ministers deserve to be attacked and harassed without end, as he has been doing for so many years, even after retirement and death.
We are glad that Reverend Harper and the First UU Church of Nashville has raised this issue, and join them in urging the UUMA to refine the problematic wording. There’s a big difference, however, between such constructive criticism and the hyperbolic attacks of a disturbed and obsessed individual with no positive solutions to offer.