Social Change and Open Religion

September 8, 1963
Rochester

Sermon Series - The Free Church in a Changing World
1. Social Change and Open Religion


What is changing in the world? What is free about the Church? Why did the study commissions of the Unitarian Unitarian Association place these two ideas together in establishing a title for the most serious self-examination ever of our liberal faith and order? In the first of the sermon series which attempts to evaluate liberal religion in the light of these extensive studies, I would like to place the methods of our faith in the context of our world today — our hopes about it, our fears for it, the issues which should stir us most and the goals we have in view as we go to our jobs, clean the house, read books, encountering the pageant of unending personal experience.

In the last generation or two, there has been more rapid social change than in all of man's history. Change occurs when inventions and engineering developments accumulate, causing an increasingly wide-spread application of new machinery, housing, transportation, strikingly greater and faster means of communication. We drive automobiles which were only the speculations of fantasy writers, 70 years ago; our aircraft and space projects were predicted only by science fiction writers; only a few years ago our house-hold appliances would have seemed possible only with an Aladdin's lamp and a miraculous genie. But these have become commonplace.

Instead of hand-written letters laboriously transported by stage-coach or slow train, our communications ride the air-waves with the speed of light. When 200,000 people marched on Washington, August 28, to testify to their belief that there should be jobs and freedom for all, the events were televised that same day to Europe via Telstar. Everyone of you could lengthen the list of marvelous change almost endlessly.

There is importance in noting that the scholars call this age of discovery and development, "social change," not "social progress," or "social evolution," as was true with many observers of, say, 100 years ago. We have come to recognize that change in itself is not necessarily progress in the things that matter most to the enhancement of the human family. Cultural change in itself is not necessarily evolution, unless the family of man clarifies standards of individual and group morals and insists that engineering changes or scientific discovery do not degrade the best standards of morality. "Social change" carries no moral directive or ethical commitment – and this is one of the reefs on which the modern world can be wrecked.

It is possible to use several central illustrations; e.g., the spiraling armaments race and nuclear sweepstakes, to which the present test ban treaty bears such an important moral relationship. The idea of the population explosion could be developed and its indubitable tie-in with the amount of resources available for humans. But because the March on Washington is hugely present in the minds of so many Americans, let me speak of that as an example of effects of social change and the morality needed to embrace that change profitably for the human family.

Not only do we have the research and engineering to create an economy of abundance of material things, but also television, newspapers and all other public media, proclaim that the American way of life includes ingenious and practical appliances, excellent housing, becoming clothes, luxurious, but "inexpensive" cars, luscious foods and fine drink. For much of the population this is a reality; but for a considerable disinherited minority, these comfortable and lush surroundings are a mirage.

This leads to another observation. Even though the amount of physical change and new material development dwarfs the imagination, at the same time, the majority of persons are inclined to resist change when it applies to ideas or behavior.

In spite of the tremendous amount of invention and accumulation of goods, man's nature seems to have changed biologically hardly at all. In the new world history sponsored by UNESCO, Jacquetta Hawkes and Leonard Wooley in the opening volume remark how man in his earliest days followed the general habits he obeys today. The arts of painting, dance and music existed; man tried to establish a stable family and workable social groupings. He devised clothes that were ornamental as well as useful, lived in houses on the ground, cooked his food and trained his children. He wondered at the mysteries of seasonal and life cycles and devised the rituals of religions.

There was within him a complex of emotional reactions, aggression, fear, the desire to escape, the reluctance to change. In primitive days these impulses served him well. If he could not club the animal or outlander who threatened him, he could run and hide. The nonchanging tribal relationships provided stability; instinctively man was slow to change. This biological heritage is still strong within us, even though mastered by social controls for the most part. But, as the renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Joost Merloo observed, “the most dangerous thing in the world is the mixture of technological know-how with undisciplined passion.”

When we bring together this impressive roster of social changes and the slowness with which man changes his instinctive ways, there is created the setting for social conflict that now exists when the Negro and other minority group members insist on freedom now, equality of voting opportunity now, equality of job opportunity now, equality of educational opportunity now.

The social changes needed are not simple, nor as easily achieved as may sometimes be proposed. Andrew Cordier, for many years a highly-placed UN official, had a pertinent story about wrong ways to effect social change. (TC record, April,63) "Many years ago a missionary, wishing to strike at the heart of a social structure of a large tribe, converted the head of the tribe, a certain King Charles. In the baptismal rite, the missionary exclaimed ‘I baptize you Charles King.’ Now both names are honorable, but the use of the baptismal rite to bring about instantaneous and sweeping social change led to serious and unexpected complications."

But the disinherited minorities no longer will tolerate a policy of slower, later or partial achievement of their goals. At the same time the favored majority, comfortable middle class or upper, resists the precipitous changes which the times demand. Again this confrontation of differing attitudes can be explained in the nature of our behavior as human beings. No matter where you may look in the world, those who find life satisfactory as it is, with enough of the world's goods and a favored position in the social situation, will resist change. It is not that they necessarily cherish sinister plans to keep the disinherited minority in an inferior position, but rather the world they know is well defined; the goals they can choose have accurate road maps; they can guide their conduct and effort with reasonable assurance that they will harvest the fruits of the seeds of effort, knowledge and persistence.

On the other hand, the disinherited, the Negro and other minorities in our country do not possess such plain guides. Communication and consumer advertising has brought the image that there is a comfortable, equal world that is proclaimed as the “American Way.” By specific American philosophical premises, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Emancipation Proclamation, as well as the art of commercial persuasion, the minority group member has come to believe, and rightly so, that these values, goods and position are rightfully his, also. Thus the minority group responds with action when there are points of reform or revolution which crystallize and activate his just hopes for equality.

To this recipe for misunderstanding between the comfortable contented and the deprived disinherited, one should add the ingredient that there is great emphasis in our science, invention, engineering and social sciences on research. There seems to be a relationship between this willingness to experiment and develop and a readiness for social change.

In his book on the Black Muslim movement in America, Erik Lincoln has an illustration which digests this dilemma. "The American conscience is like a Georgia mule, drowsing under a mulberry tree: it will twitch when the fly bites, now here, now there, and so to sleep again." But we may doubt that the American conscience will be permitted much more time to sleep on civil rights or relapse again into postponement.

The catalogue of incidents, not only the March on Washington, but also Alabama, Folcroft, Pa., the issues of de facto segregation in education and job opportunity, have not only produced pickets, but will again and again in the weeks to come. In his wars with his enemies, Joshua acquired a supernatural advantage when Jehovah made the sun stand still long enough for him to carry out his plans and defeat the enemy. No sun will stand still for the struggle for civil rights to be unduly prolonged.

These then are the winds of change .in our time — there is the smell of storm in them and also the fragrant refreshment of a new day. We should be aware that the change will not be postponed. The choice for most Americans is whether the struggles will be carried out by the enlightened, reasonable, non-violent persistent ones for freedom and equality, or will be established by a fanatic solution by those who have given up hope that the privileged will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the disinherited to overcome.

It is in the light of these choices, methods and values that I would have you look this year at the free church – the free church in this changing world. Albert Camus in his essay, "Helen's Exile," (p.l35) commented, "In a certain sense, the direction history will take is not the one we think. It lies in the struggle between creation and inquisition." Because of our willingness to be disciples of advancing truth, if we act reasonably, as well as maintain that we count on reason, if we do set supreme value on the individual dignity and worth of every human individual, as well as say we do, we in the free church have an opportunity to be numbered among the creators of better ways and new emancipations in this changing world.

What is free about the Free Church? Not financial, we have just passed the plate, and a budget is a budget. Hot irresponsibility, because no religion deserving the name can be irresponsible. Not license, because the best faiths are disciplined — self disciplined, when they call forth the best from their followers.

We are non-creedal. No formula of words represents our bond of fellowship. What should be perpetually implicit in our disavowal of verbal formulas or creeds is an openness to any new truths which may give guidance to ways we may make real in life the ideals we profess. The free church has nobly begun an atmosphere of resistance to hardening concepts. We will break even with "our own orthodoxies," when knowledge and experience demonstrate that we must turnabout.

In the free church we share an increasing reluctance to being trapped by words. Because the ancient terms of religion mean innumerable things to uncountable men, we are reluctant to speak of Salvation, Prayer, Atonement, Sin, God, Grace, without being careful to explain just what these words mean to us. Thus, we have given up for the most part the emotional comfort of using words which the centuries have invested with sanctioned comfort — as though by repeating the word salvation it was somehow achieved. This is one of the expensive price tags of the Free Church. In order to resist the rigid orthodoxy, we must explain what the old words mean to modern man in an age of fantastic knowledge and specialization. We need a religious vocabulary with meanings to which we agree.

But the glory of this openness, this refusal to accept words on the merit of the ancient emotions buried in them, provides us with the great privilege of hospitality to new ways of helping to make the world of our experience one in which meaning and purpose increase.

The free church is not an anarchy wherein every man does that which is right in his own eyes in the operation and decisions of the free church society. We are willing to bear the risks of democracy in the decisions which affect our lives as members of a free church. The risks of democracy are great; but if they prove not the best in the little church society, which could be embryonic of a larger way for men in all their affairs, then the whole human venture is sadly wrong about the ability of man to develop maturely in the process of making real his high purposes.

Of these things in the free church, we shall have much to say in the coming weeks. But let this be said: conviction for the individuals in the free church in the changing world is not a pedestal to stand where one overlooks the world; but conviction is a direction on a highway with other persons who travel toward their fulfillment and goals. That we disavow, most of us, a supernaturalism outside this world, in no way destroys high goals. We too should say with the Scottish theologian, P. T. Forsyth, "Unless there is within us that which is above us, we shall soon yield to that which is around us."

To justify the support of thinking persons in an age of rapid social change, the Free Church in the changing world must be among the institutions whose platforms and labors proclaim the great goals of a prevailing justice among free men as the foundation of religious experience and spiritual fulfillment. Without hesitation and without rest, the great consensus of decision of the individuals whose allegiance comprise the Free Church must support the aspirations of the disinherited to achieve their full rights now. Without such continuous affirmation and corresponding action, the high-sounding ideals, and hopes of the Free Church are but fraudulent platitudes. With such central involvement with the good struggles of persons, the great gifts of spiritual fulfillment will be ours. By spiritual fulfillment, I speak of the courage that is victorious over fear, the abiding hopes that rise eternally from the ashes of despair, the love that needs no applause, but only the opportunity to serve. When we identify with the struggle to overcome, all the great spiritual fulfillments will come to us as surely as the uninvited sun turns the darkness of night to the light of the new day.

In all this encounter with social change, the Free Church says, you need not be alone. It is the united conviction and common action of persons convinced of the high values of religion that bring a glow of fellowship to our activities. In the time of the French philosopher, St. Simon, some of his followers organized a rather eccentric religion, which was well-meaning, but short-lived. There was one symbol which is somewhat stimulating when considering individuals in a free, liberal Church. The followers of St. Simon wore a special waistcoat, which could neither be put on or taken off unassisted. Each had to help the other, emphasizing the dependence of every man on his brother.

Special waistcoats would have little appeal for us; but we must never forget in all our individuality of conviction and pride of intellect, that in the efforts we find worthwhile for ourselves and of benefit to our times, we are dependent each of us, on the other. In such interdependence, we see epitomized both the distinction and value of the Free Church in the changing world.