Hi Friends -
The 2025 acquisition proposal is based on two assumptions: For Unity to be prosperous, it must speak with one voice. To speak with one voice, Unity must be governed by one institution. We need to think through these assumptions.
Is it best to have one national institution, or are we better served with multiple institutions?
100 years from now, historians will call the past 25 years an "age of disruption." Disruption is when long-standing institutions fall to innovations provided by small, upstart organizations. When disrupted, established institutions are not overcome by better products or services. Instead, they are overwhelmed by almost-as-good products and services that are more accessible or affordable, better suited to address the real needs of people, or easier to use or understand.
Unity churches find themselves in precarious times. Posts in a closed Unity Facebook group indicate that the number of Unity ministries has fallen from approximately 600 churches in 2010 to nearly 300 churches today. Our churches are being disrupted by Sunday morning soccer practice for kids, inexpensive weekend travel for boomers, alternative affinity groups for GenXs and Millennials, and an endless variety of other methods of delivering spiritual benefits for everyone. Further, the unserved flock–those who really need help and who will commit to the ministry–is not coming to your church; they go online.
To address these challenges, we need more institutions, not just one institution. They need to be led by innovative people, trying out creative initiatives, free from less bureaucracy, encouraged to work without a great deal of corporate status, religious credentials, and financial resources.
All I can say is that it took 14 years and a tragic pandemic before I was able to convince UWM to accept TruthUnity as a sponsoring ministry for me to become an ordained Unity minister. Is it not also true that the independently run and grassroots-funded Unity Urban Ministerial School has thrived while UWH jettisoned its Unity Institute in 2015, and UWM has had to redesign its own program in 2024?
If this acquisition proposal is adopted, it won't be long before the UWH leadership discovers why Charles R. Fillmore let loose the Unity churches in 1966: Entrepreneurs inherently disrupt things and cause trouble. Does anyone really believe this proposal to shove Unity ministries back into a field department of Unity World Headquarters and to rally around a single institution will release entrepreneurial spirit and innovation?
Why has there been no discussion this year about exactly what we as ministries and we as ministers must do to address our challenges? Are we not deceiving ourselves with the notion that selling ourselves to UWH is going to reverse the decline in our churches?
Should all Unity ministries speak with one voice led by Unity World Headquarters, or are we better served with multiple expressions of Unity?
Unity was founded in 1889 as a publishing company. For very good reasons, it continues to function as a media company today, much like Disney, Paramount, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Media companies are powerful tools that can change human consciousness.
However, Unity World Headquarters has a profound and legitimate concern: UWH has hundreds of "affiliates" who use Unity's name and branding assets in inconsistent ways.
Myrtle Fillmore tried to fix the problem in the 1930s when Unity began ordaining certain teachers as ministers: by ordaining some Unity teachers, Unity could control the messaging in the centers–ordinations went only to those who stuck to the Unity message. It didn't work. Unity ministers continued to teach whatever they wanted, in the name of Unity.
Charles Fillmore tried to fix the problem in 1966 by severing the Unity ministries from the Unity School. That only aggravated the problem: he released the field ministries in 1966 without establishing ground rules for who could declare themselves Unity churches. It set up an unexpected assumption that the churches had some legal right to use the Unity name, at least as it applied to denominational concerns like worship and ordination.
UWH tried to fix the problem in 2009-2010 with the branding initiative. The "survey" that led to the new branding was flawed; 88% of those surveyed were preselected "cultural creatives," representing at best 25% of the general population. The survey marginalized people with traditional and centrist political, cultural, and religious beliefs. The branding advocates promised huge benefits in church growth. But 12 years later, we find ourselves down to 300 churches.
UWM tried to fix the problem in 2022-2023 with the “Power of Focused Ministry” presentations. Shad Groverland, the new UWM CEO, promoted a campaign to reset the messaging according to five "pillars," one of which was a return to Christian roots as taught by the Fillmores.
UWH leadership perceived Groverland's campaign as a serious threat to brand uniformity. In November 2023, Jim Blake responded with a video declaring "the Christian landscape has changed," that UWH would no longer brand itself as "primarily Christian," and claiming that "keeping our language more general has resulted in sustained growth for UWH in recent years." I sense that Jim’s concern has led to today’s acquisition proposal.
Take a close look at the 2025 Charter, written by UWH leadership. You will perceive a strong interest in brand conformity, reflecting UWH’s desire to assert branding uniformity across its affiliate websites. Media companies have a serious problem when their affiliates assert independent use of digital assets. Have you ever seen a television affiliate with two logos? Does a Fox station broadcast PBS content?
To achieve branding conformity, UWH needs to establish 100% ownership of Unity brand assets. Why? Every church ministry must recognize that UWM has a legitimate claim to partial ownership of Unity trademarks, at least as they apply to denominational concerns. By acquiring UWM, Unity World Headquarters can strengthen its claim to full ownership of Unity brand assets. It is a legitimate and essential need for UWH, as much as it would be for Disney.
So much for the legitimate and essential needs of Unity World Headquarters. Let's look at the legitimate and essential needs of Unity ministries.
Many Unity ministry leaders prefer the branding of Unity World Headquarters. I have had dozens of conversations this year with people who have different opinions on the acquisition. Almost without exception, they fall into one of two groups: those who prefer the universalist branding of "universal spiritual teachings that show up in every major religion" and those who prefer the "link to the educational movement inaugurated by Jesus Christ."
Here is my observation: Those who prefer the Universalist UWH branding, those in the first group, support the acquisition; those who prefer the Fillmore branding, those in the second group, have strong reservations about the acquisition. So, the fault line that separates the institutional decision to sell lies over the branding decision.
Consolidating branding decisions under a corporate CEO and an unelected board may be an effective way to get one's branding preferences adopted, but changing ownership of institutions to do that is an exceptionally high price to pay. Do we really need to sell ourselves to a media company?
Selling ourselves is a serious mistake, for at least three reasons. First, the 2025 Charter allows internal discussion, but it restricts external messaging to UWH leadership. Yes, we can talk internally, but Unity will now speak with one voice. This acquisition is an agreement that no one may speak publicly for UWH except UWH leadership.
Second, Affiliates must conform to a brand identity. Media companies do not permit affiliates to carry more than one brand. They may be independent legal entities, but their affiliation obliges them to brand conformity.
However, it is a third reason that really concerns me. Media companies are not only powerful, they are also dynamic, much more dynamic than religious institutions. They will change and adapt their messaging as needed to accommodate political pressure and cultural winds. Is that not why we see today shakeups of late-night television programming and billionaires interested in acquiring the digital assets of giant media companies?
You may like the branding currently offered by Unity World Headquarters. And you may think that selling ourselves to UWH is a convenient way to get it adopted by Unity Worldwide Ministries. But keep in mind that the CEO and unelected board we may entrust with our branding decisions can change. So be careful for what you ask for.
Sunday, October 19, 2025
