|
By Dr. Bruce T. Marshall
September 18, 2011
Reading
It was the month of August, the year 1648, just over 363 years ago.
The place was Cambridge, Massachusetts, where 12 years earlier an
institution called “New College” had been established for the
purpose of training ministers. “New College” was later renamed
“Harvard College” in honor of John Harvard, a local clergyman who
left a lot of money in his will to this institution.
The occasion for the meeting in 1648 was to gather ministers from
Massachusetts and Connecticut in order to articulate a form of
governance for the churches being established by those of Puritan
and Pilgrim heritage in New England. That is, how these churches
should be organized, who should have authority, how they were to go
about the work of the church.
A little background here, pre-1648. The Puritans and Pilgrims who
emigrated from England did so, in part, to escape the reach of the
Church of England. For decades previously, they had sought to reform
the Church of England from within, holding study groups,
discussions, and conferences to consider how the churches could most
effectively express and emulate what they considered the Word of
God. The hierarchy of Church of England viewed these small
independent groups as a challenge to its authority, so its agents
broke up the meetings, punishing those who participated.
Ultimately, many participants in these dissident groups left England
to come to the New World, and they did so in part in order to escape
the established church. They sought the freedom to create their own
congregations which would not be subject to control by external
forces.
As Christianity had developed throughout the ages, hierarchical
organizations had become the norm. The simple gatherings of the
early Christians had been replaced by highly complex organizations
with many layers of authority. It was this hierarchy that sanctioned
efforts of church leaders to dictate practice and belief from
above—and to disrupt any group that chose directions other than that
which the leadership approved. So in 1648, as the Massachusetts and
Connecticut clergy convened to establish a shared polity, they were
particularly concerned to protect the independence and authority of
individual congregations.
The result of this meeting was a document called The Cambridge
Platform, and it featured this section,
..in the days of the apostles, they...went from place to place and
preached the gospel ; and as many as professed to believe the gospel
and were baptized, and being of a competent number, they formed into
a distinct church. But how did they form churches? And how are
churches now to be formed?...I answer, A mutual covenant....A number
of professing Christians cannot be formed into a church without
their freely and mutually covenanting to walk together in all the
duties and ordinances of the gospel. They may be real and visible
saints, while they remain un-connected and separate ; but they
cannot be a proper church, without entering into covenant and laying
themselves under certain obligations to each other, to live and act
like Christians.
The Cambridge Platform is a long document containing much that
today’s Unitarian Universalists have challenged or discarded or
drifted away from. But at the center is a characteristic that has
held throughout the generations and the centuries. That is, our
method of creating, organizing and governing churches or
congregations. In the words of that document, “We freely covenant to
walk together.” At the center of each Unitarian Universalist
congregation is an agreement among peers to come together and form a
congregation—not through authorization by some external ecclesiastic
structure or through adherence to a specific creed or statement of
belief but through our own choice. As individuals, we covenant
together to create a spiritual community.
This morning we’ll consider some implications of what is called,
“Congregational Polity.”
Sermon
This year begins my third with you in this transitional ministry.
The first two years were called “an interim ministry,” that is, the
interim between settled ministries. But since we have needed a third
year to settle a new minister and since interim ministers can, by
definition, only serve two years, we needed a new title for me. That
title was provided by the Unitarian Universalist Association so that
this year I am your “developmental minister.” I’ve been wondering,
“What’s it look like to be ‘developmental?’”
One way, I think, is to devote attention to some basics of Unitarian
Universalist congregations: how we do things, why we do things as we
do, what is the history, what are the reasons for our practices,
what problems are created and what opportunities? That is to say, I
would like us to consider our “polity.” From time to time throughout
this year, I’ll devote a Sunday to an element of UU polity. My hope
is that this might encourage a deeper understanding amongst us all
of what holds us together as a congregation and how we can build
upon that.
Congregational polity, as expressed in The Cambridge Platform, is a
feature of governance in congregations of the Unitarian Universalist
Association, but we are not the only ones that follow this practice.
There are four American religious denominations or associations that
are direct descendents of the Puritans and Pilgrims of New England
and that continue to be guided by elements of the 1648 statement.
These four are the United Church of Christ, the National Association
of Congregational Christian Churches, the Conservative
Congregational Christian Conference, and us: the Unitarian
Universalist Association.
In the beginning, all four of these organizations were one. But then
a kind of big bang occurred, and the one became four. The first
explosion took place in 1825 with the formation of the American
Unitarian Association, later to become the Unitarian Universalist
Association. The Unitarians represented the liberals of the original
churches of the Puritans and the Pilgrims. The churches that
remained after the Unitarians left became known as
Congregationalists. The next split didn’t occur until 1948, when a
group of churches left the Congregationalists in protest of what was
felt in these churches to be an increasingly liberal stance. This
split created something called the Conservative Congregational
Christian Conference. The last split occurred in 1955 and at issue
here was neither liberalism nor conservatism. Here the issue was
actually polity: church governance. At the time the
Congregationalists were in conversation with another
denomination—the Evangelical and Reformed Church—which resulted in
creating the United Church of Christ. Some of the Congregationalist
churches felt that the historic emphasis on congregation polity
would be diluted in this new configuration and so they left to form
the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches.
(American church history is endlessly complicated—and
fascinating—because of our habit of splitting and merging, merging
and splitting.)
All four of these present denominations or associations can claim a
direct historic connection to The Cambridge Platform of 1648, and
each of them is insistent upon retaining congregational polity, even
though the congregations of these four organizations look quite
different from each other.
Congregational polity is a particularly American form of church
organization, which congregations of other traditions have also
adopted. These would include the Baptists, Mennonites, Amish, and
the Brethren. Also Jewish Synagogues and most Islamic mosques that
are located in the United States. The influence of congregational
polity even appears in American religious organizations that don’t
have congregational polity. For example, the Vatican has ongoing
problems with American Catholics because they don’t just sit still
and listen when the Roman Catholic hierarchy issues an edict.
American Catholics say, well, maybe I agree with that and maybe I
don’t. Hence, this core feature of Unitarianism seeps into some of
the most unlikely of contexts.
I’m reminded of a statement included in a book by Theodore Sorenson,
who was the chief speechwriter for John F. Kennedy. The two worked
closely together, despite their quite different backgrounds. Kennedy
was an easterner, wealthy, and Roman Catholic. Sorenson came from
Nebraska, grew up in humble circumstances, and was a Unitarian.
Kennedy once kiddingly asked Sorenson if his Catholicism was rubbing
off on him. “No,” said Sorenson, “but some of my Unitarianism is
rubbing off on you.”
● ● ●
The central feature of congregational polity is that each church is
autonomous; each congregation is independent. There is no authority
higher than the local congregation. Churches do join together into
associations to accomplish things that would be difficult for
individual congregations to do. For example, training ministers. It
is unlikely that an individual congregation could mount a full
program of theological education so we work together on that.
Similarly, addressing issues of social concern. One congregation may
have only a small voice, but an association of congregations can
sometimes actually make a difference.
An example of an association formed by individual Unitarian
Universalist congregations would be our district: the Joseph
Priestly District that includes UU congregations in the metropolitan
areas of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington and the regions in
between. Another example would be our national organization: the
Unitarian Universalist Association with about 1,000 congregations
nationwide. And there are international associations that join
Unitarian Universalist and like-minded congregations worldwide, such
as, the International Association for Religious Freedom. But none of
these associations of congregations—at the regional, national or
international level—has authority over us: Davies Memorial Unitarian
Universalist Church. We are independent, self-governing, not subject
to any external ecclesiastical authority. As is each other member
congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Association: independent,
self-governing, not subject to any external ecclesiastical
authority.
There are many implications to congregational polity, which can be
confusing to those accustomed to other traditions, other forms of
polity.
For example, ordination of ministers. That is, granting a person the
authority to function as a minister. In many traditions, it is the
larger church organization that has the authority to ordain. In our
tradition, it is the local church that has the authority to ordain.
So I was not ordained by the Unitarian Universalist Association. I
was ordained by the first church I served: the Unitarian
Universalist Church of Flint, Michigan. When I moved to my next
church in Huntington, New York, I was not re-ordained because UU
churches agree to recognize most ordinations—not all, but most—of
other UU churches. So one ordination is generally enough.
Well, you might wonder, does that mean that a church can just ordain
anybody they want? Could this church—Davies Memorial—ordain
everybody here this morning? You walk in thinking you’re just going
to church; you walk out a minister. Does this church under
congregational polity have that authority? The answer: yes. We could
do that.
Now please understand, I am not proposing or advocating this. And in
fact, it doesn’t happen for a lot of reasons. One is that this would
be just way too many ministers. Another is that other
congregations—exercising their own congregational polity—would be
unlikely to recognize such a mass ordination. But it does happen
that an individual congregation upon the authority of congregational
polity will sometimes ordain someone who has not gone through the
standard course of Unitarian Universalist theological education. My
home church in Illinois ordained a philosophy professor at a local
University who then served as minister of that congregation for some
15 years—quite successfully too. Without our tradition of
congregational polity, they would not have had the authority to do
that.
Congregational polity extends into many other realms of church
governance. Such as, we are democratic organizations. The highest
authority is the vote of the members of a local congregation—that
vote trumps everything else. It also means that ministers are not
placed in congregations by a bishop or some other person or group
outside of that church. Rather, ministers in our tradition are
settled through a long and exhaustive search process which
culminates in the vote of a congregation. This is not the most
efficient process, as we all know. But it is based firmly in the
practices of our tradition. Another feature of congregational polity
that extends back to the beginnings in 1648: we tend to be
suspicious of external authority, which is why—for example—our
Unitarian Universalist Association is a weak central organization.
It exists to help us do what we can’t do alone, not to tell us what
to do (though sometimes we need to remind the UUA of the limitations
of its power).
● ● ●
So what difference does it make, congregational polity? There must
be something important about it because congregations of our
traditions have clung so tenaciously to it. Between the creation of
The Cambridge Platform and the present, just about everything else
about our congregations has changed. If we were somehow to bring
back those ministers who gathered in 1648 to develop The Cambridge
Platform, they would recognize just about nothing about us—except
for our congregational polity: our method of church governance. That
they would understand.
Why, I wonder, has that not changed too?
Well, one thing that congregational polity does not dictate—does not
guarantee—is theological conformity. There are congregations that
adhere to congregational polity representing all manner of
theological perspectives. The four traditions I named earlier that
are direct descendents of The Cambridge Platform cover the gamut
just in themselves. Left-wing: us, right-wing: the Conservative
Congregational Christian Council and the other two somewhere in the
middle.
So right there is an argument against congregational polity: the
lack of external control. A congregation can go off in whatever
direction it chooses. The argument is that you need something
external as a point of reference to prevent the kind of diversity
and theological drift we find among the churches practicing this
form of governance.
That’s the argument against congregational polity. It’s also the
argument for congregational polity.
I grew up in a Unitarian Universalist church. I have spent my
professional life in this movement. This is my family. As with just
about any family, there are some aspects of what we do that can kind
of drive me crazy. But unlike a family family, involvement in a
church family is a choice. I could walk out and it would be
perfectly legal and I doubt that such an act would consign me to
eternity in the fiery furnaces of hell.
So why am I still here? Why do I make this choice? It’s not because
of congregational polity that I stay—church governance is not a
matter of ultimate concern for me. But the reason I stay is, I
suspect, an effect—a result—of congregational polity.
The reason I stay, quite simply, is you. The people of this
congregation. The people of other congregations I have served. The
people who are Unitarian Universalists. To my mind, UU congregations
attract a remarkable group of people. We are people who are actively
engaged in life, who question and wonder. We are people who believe
that we can make a difference in this world—that we can help create
a better society—and who act on that belief. We are people who
affirm life, who value the days given to us and try to make the most
of them. We are people who are less attracted to certainties, more
attracted to opportunities, possibilities, who are concerned about
what still might be. We like to read, discuss, explore, investigate,
learn new things. We are people for whom what is holy and sacred is
not out there somewhere in the distance but right here amidst the
give and take, the push and pull, of everyday life.
What joins us together is not theological conformity. Rather, what
joins us together is this agreement to form a religious community, a
community that seeks to address our needs and our concerns at this
moment in time right here right now. What joins us is an
understanding that we are responsible—for this community, for each
other, for the shape of society and the fate of the world.
This is related to our polity because in our tradition we are
responsible. We are responsible for our congregations; we’re
responsible for our own spiritual journeys. It’s basic: when you’re
responsible for your own thing, you put yourself into it. People
putting themselves heart and soul into a congregation and into their
religious quest is what makes this place special. The vitality that
results is what keeps me involved in UU congregations.
Last Sunday, Amy’s cousin was visiting and came with us here to
Davies. She grew up in a Jewish atheist family, has never been part
of any synagogue or church or anything. She said that she really
didn’t understand why people would choose to be part of a spiritual
community.
On the way home after being here for last Sunday’s service, she said
that now maybe she does understand. That it has to do with
community, attending to community in a society in which there are
not many opportunities for this kind of relationship. She said she
liked the ease of relationship among people here of different
backgrounds, ages, cultures, jobs. She said she even liked the
announcements which, let’s face it, can go on and on. But she said
it showed how engaged people are in this church. She didn’t say
this, but even our disputes and controversies are based in that same
caring and engagement.
I will not claim that we hold the franchise for interesting people,
vital community, or opportunities for engagement. But we do these
things pretty well. And one of the reasons we do this well is how
we’re organized, how we govern ourselves, the responsibility we
claim to pursue our own spiritual pathways. So our
polity—congregational polity—is an important factor in developing
and maintaining vital communities.
● ● ●
We freely covenant to walk together. That’s the essential organizing
principle of our congregations, as expressed in the 1648 Cambridge
Platform. If you chose to become a member of this congregation, the
act of joining is the same as it has been since 1648: you sign a
book containing the names of others who have made the same
commitment. You covenant to walk together with those who have
entered a similar path.
One more thing. The authors of The Cambridge Platform sought to
articulate why people chose to walk together by forming
congregations. That is, the purpose of the church. Today we
articulate what we stand for by citing our seven principles, the
first of which is to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every
person. The authors of The Cambridge Platform drew upon a different
source—but it still works and provides another point of connection
with those who created that document 363 years ago.
To articulate the purpose of the church they turned to the Bible and
called upon the so-called “second commandment” of Jesus—which is,
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The church, then, was to
be a community of individuals who freely choose to join
together—that is, to covenant with each other—in order to learn, to
teach, to demonstrate the pathways of love.
Maybe, then, drawing upon this heritage, we could get our seven
principles down to just one sentence. Why are we here? “We covenant
with each other to walk together in the spirit of love.”
● ● ●
|
