|
By Dr. Bruce T. Marshall
October 3, 2010
Readings:
(In 1857) The Christian Inquirer devoted an article to relations
between Universalists and Unitarians…. The author deplored the
‘mutual distrust and recrimination’ that seemed to exist between the
two… After all, the two groups were both ‘branches of the one tree
of Liberal Christianity.’ .... (Unitarianism) first appeared among
scholars, learned men, and ‘the aristocratic classes of society,’
while Universalism was ‘the offspring of the people at large, and
was deeply rooted in the democratic elements of the community….’ But
regardless of their differences—or possibly because of them—they
complemented rather than competed with each other. Both had a
mission ‘to uphold a new and better Church, the Church of the New
World….’ In short, ‘head and heart ought to work together…
Russell E. Miller, The Larger Hope
When the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church
of America completed their merger in 1961, a new entity was born,
the Unitarian Universalist Association. Although there was much
continuity between the old organizations and the new one in the
merger, there was also a definite departure from the unique
identities that both the Unitarians and the Universalists had
developed in America since the eighteenth century....If they shared
many liberal values, they also found different ways to express and
embody those values and different groups to whom their liberal
message appealed. The different sources of the stream of liberal
religion should be kept in mind, for in that diversity there is a
richness that needs to be remembered.
David Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists
Sermon:
One Sunday a year, Unitarian Universalist congregations across the
country are asked to spotlight an aspect of the work of our national
organization: the Unitarian Universalist Association. Hence,
Association Sunday. Last year, for example, we focused on our
efforts nationwide to create more welcoming and diverse
congregations.
The theme of this year’s Association Sunday is the Association
itself because we are approaching our 50th birthday. In May of 1961,
the governing bodies of the American Unitarian Association and the
Universalist Church of America formally ratified the joining of
these two organization to create the Unitarian Universalist
Association.
It was a long time coming. The Universalist Church of America dates
back to 1778. The American Unitarian Association came into being in
1825, joining congregations whose founding dates stretched back as
far as the early 1600s. These two organizations of liberal
congregations had existed side by side for well over a century,
often taking similar theological stances. Both were non-creedal,
both emphasized that faith must be expressed in action, both
affirmed the concept of humanity as having worth and dignity and
rejected the orthodox emphasis on sin, and both made efforts to
bring change to our society. Unitarians and Universalists were both
involved in movements to end slavery, to reform hospital practices,
and to extend rights to women and Native Americans. Universalists
were the first to ordain women as ministers in America, closely
followed by the Unitarians.
As might be expected, there was some going back and forth among
congregants between the Unitarians and the Universalists. In the
city of Washington, Unitarians established a church in 1821while it
would be another 50 years before the Universalists were able to
successfully organize. Among the reasons given for this lag was that
the Universalists in Washington were all going to the Unitarian
church. The minister of the Unitarian church in San Francisco during
the Civil War years, Thomas Starr King, held standing as both a
Unitarian and a Universalist. When asked why the two did not join
forces, he remarked that perhaps the Unitarians and the
Universalists were “too close of kin to be married.”
And yet, there were differences. Unitarians were famously rational
in their approach to religion, emphasizing the human potential to
address the challenges of existence. Universalists, on the other
hand, were more emotional, guided by a concept of a loving God who
cared about each individual. Unitarians emphasized human potential;
Universalists emphasized the love of God. And so there’s truth in
another statement by Thomas Starr King. When asked to identify the
difference between the Unitarians and the Universalists, he stated
in an often quoted remark. “The Universalists believed that God was
too good to damn them forever while the Unitarians believed that
they were too good to be damned.”
More significant than theological differences however were
differences in social class. Unitarians tended to be urban,
educated, upper middle class. Universalist churches, on the other
hand, were located in small towns, rural areas, working class
neighborhoods. Unitarians drew from the ruling classes;
Universalists were ordinary people. So while their beliefs were
similar, social class created barriers that made it difficult for
the Unitarians and the Universalists to inhabit the same room.
In the 1950s, as the idea of merger became a serious proposal, the
leading Unitarian minister in Washington, D.C. at the time—A. Powell
Davies—and the leading Universalist minister—Seth Brooks both
opposed it. A. Powell Davies was concerned that the Universalists
would be a conservative force, holding back development of the
progressive faith he envisioned. While Seth Brooks feared that the
Unitarians would overwhelm the Universalists, causing the
distinctiveness of their message and tradition to be lost.
What actually happened has been different from what either
anticipated. Because in joining these two traditions, something new
was created, more than the sum of its parts: a different religious
option than had existed when the two were separate. Unitarian
Universalism became more innovative, more dedicated to social
change, more humanistic, and more open to the insights of world
religions. The religion of the head—Unitarianism—came together with
the religion of the heart—Universalism—and created a form of
religious liberalism better able to address the human condition as a
whole.
Looking back, there was a moment when this union between the
Unitarians and the Universalists came together. That was on August
28, 1963 when 1,000 Unitarian Universalists joined with over 100,000
people drawn mostly from churches and synagogues from across the
country for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where
Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. Unitarian
Universalist clergy and lay people were active and visible
participants in the Civil Rights movement, making a real difference
as this involvement also helped create a Unitarian Universalist
identity: a socially-concerned religion that sought fairness and
justice for all, that welcomed religious seekers, and that
encouraged people to live to their full potential.
● ● ●
There have been ups and downs during these 50 years. While the Civil
Rights Movement drew us together, the War in Vietnam and the
cultural changes of the late 60s and the 70s pulled us apart. The
debates were often fervent and intense with those on all sides
wondering if the institution would hold while subject to such
intense pressure.
And there have been changes. We look different than we did 50 years
ago. The biggest change with the most lasting implications, I think,
has been the increasing presence of women as clergy. When I was in
theological school in the early 1970s, there was one woman in our
class. Admittedly, ours was not a big class. I’m thinking there were
12 total—so 11 men, 1 woman. More telling was the attitude toward
women in the ministry. I remember a prominent minister taking this
one woman in our class aside and asking, in effect, “What are you
doing here?” Indeed, despite the Unitarian and Universalist
tradition of ordaining women going back for almost a century, by
1968 only 2% of ordained Unitarian Universalist clergy were women.
Thirty-one years later—in 1999—the UUA achieved a watershed. It
actually made the front page of the New York Times when the UUA
reported that 51% of its ordained clergy were women. I don’t know
what the figures are today, but I am certain that the trend has
continued. When the Baltimore/Washington area UU clergy meet, the
attendance is about 2/3rds women.
Another change: the active participation of laypeople and ministers
who are gay, lesbian, or transgender. In 1967, a survey of Unitarian
Universalists revealed that 88% believed homosexuality should be
discouraged, either by education or law. Three years later—in
1970—the General Assembly of the UUA passed a resolution calling to
an end to discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
In 1973, the UUA established an Office of Gay Concerns, and in 1979
the first openly gay minister was called to serve a UU congregation.
In 1981, when I become minister of the Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship of Huntington, New York on Long Island, ours was the only
congregation on the island where services of union were performed
for gay couples. We were also the first congregation on Long Island
to address AIDS. And we were one of the few places where
organizations in support of GLBT rights were welcome to meet.
Today, some of our finest ministers are openly gay or lesbian, as is
the current moderator of the UUA, as are many of our most committed
lay people. We have benefited enormously from the reluctance of
other denominations to accept gay or lesbian or bisexual congregants
or clergy, as we have also benefited from the slow acceptance of
women as clergy. People have come to us when they felt shut out from
their own religious traditions, and we are the stronger for it.
In these two realms particularly, we have also have an impact upon
the larger society. As women and as gay and lesbian people have
taken positions of importance in our congregations—such as, serving
as ministers—we have anticipated changes that would occur in the
larger society. So when women began to serve in the ministry—a
traditional position of authority—then other women were going to
ask, well, why not law, medicine, politics, business, research?
Which is, of course, exactly what has happened.
Acceptance of those who are openly gay or lesbian in the larger
society has been slower, but it’s coming. When I first officiated at
services of union for gay and lesbian couples in the early 1980s, it
seemed like an edgy thing to do. Guests would arrive for the
ceremony looking a little worried about what they were about to
experience. But then after the ceremony, what guests almost
universally said was, “Oh, it was a wedding: two people making a
commitment to love and care for each other.” And then they would go
on to the next thought, “So, why isn’t this legal?”
Hence, since the 1961 creation of the Unitarian Universalist
Association, we have been active participants influencing the
directions this society has taken: in the realm of civil rights,
women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights—as well as a range of other
issues in which we have also made significant contributions.
Playing the numbers game and comparing 1961 with the present, there
are now many more UU congregations than there were Unitarian or
Universalist congregations at the time of merger. Looking at just
the Washington, D.C. area, in 1961 there were 12 Unitarian and 2
Universalist congregations for a total of 14. Today, there are 32
Unitarian Universalist congregations. In recent years, nationally,
we have shown small annual increases in membership until the past
two years when we showed small annual losses. Essentially, we have
held even, which doesn’t seem that great except when compared with
what has happened in the so-called mainline American Protestant
denominations, which at one time controlled the religious landscape.
From 1960 until 2005, mainline denominations lost 10 million
members, almost a third of their membership, as they dropped from a
total 31 million members to 21 million members.
Some look at the growth of the new mega churches that are mostly
fundamentalist in theology and assume that this is the destination
of those leaving the mainline churches. In same cases that’s true,
but mostly the habit of going to church is simply declining.
According to one figure I’ve seen, today 40% of Americans are now
un-churched, that is, they don’t attend any kind of religious
institution.
● ● ●
So, what about the future? There will continue to be changes, but
what might they be? What might we anticipate for the UUA and for the
larger society in which we participate?
Change is notoriously difficult to predict. In 1961, if you had
asked most Unitarians and Universalists to predict the future of the
new Unitarian Universalist congregations, most would have said that
we were becoming much more “integrated” (that’s the word they used
then—today we use “diverse.”). Whatever term we use, it didn’t
happen. Fifty years later, we’re just as white as we were in 1961.
On the other hand, few people would have seen the change in the role
of women and just about nobody would have anticipated the
contributions of gay and lesbian people. Similarly, I doubt that
anybody would have predicted the rapid fall from power of the
mainline Christian denominations.
So it is something of a fool’s errand to predict the future. I am
reminded of the quote attributed to the ancient Greek playwright,
Euripides, who observed, “The best of seers is he who guesses well.”
Nevertheless, I’ll offer some thoughts—let’s call them guesses that
may or may not turn out well.
First of all, the context. We live in an age in which organized
religion is declining in membership, participation, and influence.
It’s not just the mainline churches that have suffered such a fate.
The Roman Catholic Church is in a crisis of confidence. Judaism
struggles to hold on to its distinct identity as a people. The
mega-churches have grown remarkably and claim an enthusiastic
following, but it’s a niche that has probably maxed out. Nobody
grows forever. We might not experience this loss of religion’s
influence so much in Prince George’s County where, as one person
expressed it, when you meet someone they first ask, “What’s your
name?” and then, “Where do you go to church?” but throughout our
society, organized religion has become a less potent force. In the
1950s, the Washington newspapers assigned reporters to cover the
Sunday services at All Souls Church when A. Powell Davies was
speaking. Today that kind of regular coverage would not occur for
any minister or priest or rabbi, unless, of course, there was a
scandal. Otherwise, what goes on in religious organizations is
pretty much ignored by the media—or consigned to the weekly religion
page.
Throughout these last fifty years, Unitarian Universalism has done
well by positioning ourselves as an alternative, as a different way
of being a religious community. I listen to the stories of those who
come to us and I find common themes. For some, it has been a
questioning of the creeds of traditional faiths. For some, it has
been an interfaith marriage or an interracial marriage. For some, it
has been the rejection of gay or lesbian people in other
congregations. For some, it has been the opportunity to consider
religious issues in a more open atmosphere. For some, it has been
the attraction of a religious education program that is concerned
with helping children develop into responsible adults who can make
their own decisions regarding matters of belief and morality. We
have provided an alternative to the way religion is usually done in
this country. And a lot of our national publicity has sought to
capitalize on that: if you don’t feel accepted or comfortable in
other religious communities, try us.
That sense of difference will continue to be a part of who we are,
but with the overall decline in religious observance, it won’t be
enough. When religious practice was stronger and just about
everybody went to church—or to something—then we were able to
provide a home to those who were disaffected but still had the
church habit. But the “church habit” is not as strong with coming
generations and so the question is no longer, ‘Which congregation?”
The question now is whether I participate at all.
Religious concerns have not gone away: questions of meaning, of
purpose, of hope, of transcendence, of relationship with something
greater than ourselves, of how to live a satisfying and productive
life, of how to remain grounded amidst the pressures of our lives
today. Those concerns are as powerful today as they ever have been.
The question is whether people will address them in the context of
organized religion or in some other way.
Forrest Church, minister of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York
City before his death last year, gave us a direction for what it
will take for Unitarian Universalism to meet this coming challenge.
He built a strong church—at one point the largest in the UUA—by
fashioning a message that drew upon the liberal religious tradition
to address the condition of people living in this era. The fact that
he did it in New York City, where there are plenty of things to do
on Sunday morning and where the Sunday New York Times offers stiff
competition on its own, underscores his achievement. Moreover, he
reached a national audience through his many books . He’s the
closest we’ve had to an A. Powell Davies, but he was a different
person with a different message, one suited to this time.
So this is our challenge—and our opportunity. If we can effectively
address the religious and spiritual concerns of people in this age,
our UU congregations will prosper. In a time of challenge—which this
is—it’s important to stick to your core activity which in our case
is growing vital religious communities, grounded in the liberal
religious tradition, that address the concerns of people living
today.
In the realms of public involvement, Unitarian Universalists have
focused for the past 50 years on protecting and securing individual
rights: civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, the rights of
conscience, the right to protest. This is good stuff. People deserve
equal rights no matter what the circumstances of their lives. But we
are approaching an era in which other concerns will become more
pressing. We will need to adjust or expand the ways in which we are
a presence in the larger society.
As we look to the future, we anticipate a world in which the
competition for limited resources becomes more intense. We have
limited stores of energy. Water itself will become a cause for
competition and probably conflict. There’s only so much room on our
planet, and the competition for space will increase as the world’s
population continues to grow and as medical advances enable
individuals to live longer. Along with this comes the challenge of
maintaining the food supply. Can we continue to produce enough food
to feed the planet, and will it be safe? And there is global warming
which is likely to alter the planet in ways we cannot fully
anticipate.
Religious communities can and should be involved in seeking to
address these challenges, and I’ll highlight two ways in which this
can be done.
One is through public advocacy. That is, groups that bring to light
these concerns and offer ways to address them, whether through
influencing legislation, through helping find alternative sources of
energy, through encouraging individual responsibility or in any of a
number of other ways. Congregations can organize advocacy groups
themselves or they can provide support and encouragement to other
non-church organizations that are already doing this work. My
friend, Chris Buice, minister of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian
Universalist Church in Knoxville says that organizing a congregation
for social action is like organizing a riot. You get people all
pumped up and then turn them loose.
Another way that religious communities can make a contribution is
through helping us consider how to navigate the changes in our lives
that this new set of circumstances will bring. In America we are
part of a culture that assumes more is better and that any problem
we encounter can be addressed by producing and earning more. First
of all, there’s a question of whether that has ever really worked.
But even if it has, what do our lives look like when it no longer
occurs—when growth reaches its limits? That’s a spiritual question
and a likely spiritual crisis whose early warning signals we are
already seeing.
So again, we stay vital as congregations and as a religious movement
by returning to our core concern: addressing and enhancing the
spiritual lives of whose whom we encounter. Giving us tools to
navigate the changes in our lives that are going to occur.
I remember reading a comment by a well-known comedian—I forget which
one. He made the observation that fame will buy you about 30 seconds
with an audience. After that, you need good material. We’re dealing
with a similar reality. Our history, the contributions we have made,
our reputation for standing for the right things with the right
people—that might get visitors into the door. But after that, we
need good material. We need to address the actual concerns that
bring people to seek out our congregations in the first place.
I’ll close with a quotation by Dana McLean Greeley, first president
of the Unitarian Universalist Association. He observed,
“Liberal religion is not an institution; it is a movement in
history, a set of values, and a way of life. More important than the
merger of two denominations is the quickening of the principles for
which they exist. ….We believe in change and growth. We must be
honest enough to detect our weaknesses, and brave enough to assert
and develop our strengths. If we have faith in the future, we must
be convinced that our great heritage is insignificant in comparison
with the role of liberal religion for tomorrow. Without vision we
would perish, and that role would be realized by others in our
stead. But with vision, and a commensurate commitment, our own
efforts may prove worthy of the promise of yesterday.”
Dana McLean Greeley
The Free Church in a Changing World
● ● ●
|
