Religion of the Diplomat

May 29, 1966
Plainfield

[Editor’s note: there are breaks noted in the sermon at which time other speakers spoke a few words after being introduced.]

Religion of the Diplomat

“Religion of the Diplomat” may seem like an unnecessary ironic pun when describing the annual meetings and programs of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which occurred last week at the Hotel Diplomat in Hollywood, FL. “Diplomatic Religion” is seldom a descriptive term for our meetings. But there is a certain pertinence to the title because the delegates comprised a particular assembly sent from churches and fellowships – delegates authorized to initiate change in U.U.A. bylaws; delegates with the power to vote certain public statements on issues which are political and economic, with some, if not all of the resolutions representing a controversial position. While a few delegates, here and there, were instructed to vote on certain issues, for the most part, delegates could alter any preconceived views in light of the persuasiveness of the debate. While there are patterns of likeness with the past and future annual meetings, the precise makeup of delegates was never the same as the past; and no future assembly can be an identical group of persons.

In bringing you “The Religion of the Diplomat,” the delegates from this society are presenting some of the happenings of the 1966 General Assembly of the U.U.A.

In attempting to create a sense of worship based on experience, your delegates have tried to refrain from a repetition of reports, resolutions, motions carried or amendments lost. Your delegates will attempt to communicate to you the impact of the “Religion of the Diplomat” upon them – how they felt about themselves and the U.U.A., and how the dilemmas of power registered up them.

Delegates were authorized by individual societies to be voting representatives. While delegates could not commit the independent congregations, the delineations of difference between the delegate’s vote and his responsibility to the Society he represented can never be as sharp and precise as some might wish.

Therefore, the Religion of the diplomat and any other General Assembly represents varieties of paradox:

What is more vital, the conviction of the individual or the value of an open, acknowledged voted majority view?

Or is this question resolved only by some pragmatic measure of what is appropriate for a given problem in a particular place at a specific time?

The theme of the General Assembly was “The Creative Use of Controversy.” Is there not a paradox when one attempts to consider conflict and creativity together?

Was there not a paradox in the size of the business meeting where every delegate had the right to be heard – but could only be heard if he could reach a microphone before debate was shut off? Ifs there not a paradox when one has a voice only when it is amplified electronically, subject to all the gremlins affecting equipment which sometimes malfunctioned?

“The Religion of the Diplomat” also comprised minority voices and votes: some hesitant, some aggressive, some silent, some vote-weary after an experience of being consistently on the losing side.

“The Religion of the Diplomat” was something more, too – it was the laborious search for unity and diversity, for a sense of direction when the sails flapped with changing winds or strained with sudden gusts. Is an organized religious enterprise such as the U.U.A. practical when it tries to be the uniting factor and denominational involvement of more than a thousand independent societies? How can it lead without being officious? How can it inspire? How does it speak for the individual Unitarian or Universalist?

The delegates covet your interest in these issues which should be of increasing importance to the 1st Unitarian Society of Plainfield.

===================

The process of consensus engenders feelings. How do you respond when you hear or read of a controversial position voted by delegates to the U.U.A.? Perhaps Shirley Wren and Ginny Fegel can express some measure of feelings.

===================

This Society has supported the U.U.A. consistently and generously. Does our involvement go beyond sending our dollars? There should be concern about the decisions behind dollars. There is concern. Our member, Peter Fleck, although not a delegate from this Society, is a member of the U.U.A. Board of Trustees and Chairman of the Finance Committee of the U.U.A. For three years he has presided over hearings of the Finance Committee at the General Assemblies and seen a process of influence acquire increasing momentum. Delegate Naomi Krisburg and he will try to deepen your understanding of dollars and decisions.

===================

Beyond the business agenda there are goals and programs which may help make our Society understand itself better, fulfill its purposes more adequately, and function more effectively. Betty Kent will speak to us about some of these values.

===================

There are few items more vital than the content implied in the formal words, “congregational polity.” Harriet Culton has put together some of the statements from the important hearing on this subject. If you listen attentively, you will hear contradictory as well as complimentary assertions. Toward a reconciliation of these views our Society might well spend time in study, discussion, and possible consensus. [Editor’s note – see addendum]

===================

What can be said in summation? You have heard much speculation about U.F.O.s (Unidentified Flying Objects). Whether or not they exist; and if they do exist, what their origin may be, is a matter of considerable dispute. I have no personal experience or evidence of U.F.O.s. But I have a deep concern for U.U.F.O. - Unitarian Universalist Free Organization. About this too there is speculation and debate as to whether or not we can be both free and organized.

One variety of the “Religion of the Diplomat” impressed me deeply – the sermon at the worship service delivered by Dr. James Luther Adams, theologian, professor of divinity and teacher of social ethics at Harvard University. I hope that this sermon by Dr. Adams will be printed. As I depend on notes I took, these concluding sentences may be more mine than I realize – James Luther Adams sifted through my nature, my background, my understanding, my values. He helped me to put freedom and organization in context – a never ending requirement, when one thinks about it.

Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” has been used, and rightly so, to illustrate a basic truth of human experience. But the converse statement is also true, “impotence corrupts; absolute impotence corrupts absolutely.” Power is the capacity to participate in the shaping of social decisions – to participate in controversy. To talk only about absolute power is to overlook the need for responsible power. We all should renounce absolute power for anyone or for any organization. We should support the idea of responsible power for everyone. This is organization for freedom and responsibility.

There is nothing particularly worthy about maintaining a “harmonism,” - an artificial harmony which usually overlooks the profound dissatisfaction of many persons – a “harmonism” which maintains the status quo for those whose nests are rather comfortably feathered.

To be authentically free and organized, Dr. Adams reminds us, we must become aware that while the meek may inherit the earth, hits win ball-games.

Not all would agree with the theism of James Luther Adams, but he was persuasive when he testified to the “power of God” - the power of God is represented by forces possibly not of our making, operating as Justice in history.

New occasions teach new duties – time changes the application of our faith. But for our time, I believe that although we may seldom speak with a unanimous voice, if we make our deliberative processes ever more effective, the voices of our U.U.A., our District, Our Society will speak reasonable propositions which will acquire increasing effectiveness in the shaping of right decisions in our cities, in our nation, and in our world. And if we are wise, we will permit no disagreement on specific issues to mar permanently our sense of responsibility to each other to be free and fair – we will allow neither guilt nor resentment to ruin our common bond of care for each other as well as for all mankind.

===================

Addendum:

The James Vila Blake covenant is widely used in our churches.

1. Love is the spirit of this church
And Service is its law.
This is our covenant,
To seek the truth in love,
To dwell together in peace,
And to help one another.
2. Covenants restrict – they feel creedal.
3. Creeds are a threat to ministers.
4. There should be reciprocal membership.
5. We are a voluntary association. We are also a corporation. A member does not have to believe a statement of purpose in order to belong to a voluntary association which is also a corporation. Where money is involved, a statement of purpose is essential.
6. The individual is first – then the church – then the association. Does the association have a higher right?
7. Must we have so many words about our right to believe or not believe? Let us leave it unstated.
8. We must cherish and protect our local autonomy but the individual belief comes first. A test of membership will defeat this.
9. Freedom in our local churches and local autonomy are inseparable. To have a creed or not have a creed is an essential privilege.
10. “Promote without regard to” - this means or refers to compatibility. Some things can’t be used to gauge compatibility – such as sex, or race, etc.
11. What is the difference between a consensus and a creed? Social compatibility may take the place of compatibility of principles.
12. The genius of our movement is that we have and live by certain principles but this is a covenant and not a creed. Freedom – reason – tolerance – responsibility; affirm principles and you will have unity. A creed is an intellectual verbal symbol. It makes no difference in the way a person lives. A principle is a guide to action – a basis from which to go forth.
13. What does the membership do when the minister takes adverse positions to the stated purposes of the denomination? How much does race enter into this?
14. More than open membership is the problem. Creative use of controversy somehow hinges upon a creedless association.
15. Are we expressing a creed that we have no creeds? We have a creative attitude in common. We favor risk. Let’s explore what might be!
16. Let us affirm open membership without reservation – then consider the problems. Congregational and individual autonomy do, however, develop negative controversy. There is a great need to affirm more and beyond! To agree to disagree! The test of membership is whether or not we break our relationship!