What Do You See In Church?

April 24, 1966
Plainfield

What Do You See In Church?

What do you see in Church? If you are at all typical, your allegiance is to principles – freedom to arrive at your own convictions; and the willingness to abide by the decisions arrived at through the principle of congregational polity. What one experiences visually – what you see in Church, is directly related to these principles of individual freedom of belief and group policy determination.

In this Church, where members and friends gather regularly or irregularly, we meet in a room built for us by persons long since dead.

Here you see the choir and organist. The sound of music has been one of the ways that the experience of worship has created solemnity, joy and the provocation of deeper feelings and higher thoughts.

You see the pulpit – the free pulpit, one of the great privileges of our faith. Some of you wish that more comforting things could be said; or are chagrined when you hear statements you consider wrong, trite or inappropriate. But the free pulpit is a foundation stone of the structure of the free church, whose keystone is the self-imposed discipline of the Society faithful to its by-laws.

You see flowers augmenting our service, not only with beauty and fragrance, but also with their sensory testimony that out of the common earth, life is renewed and restored, ever.

All about you can see the particular symbols of the Unitarian Society of Plainfield – the Robinson window, the Merrifield lectern with the Channing carving, the Jonas Lie mural, the Rose Window in memory of Horace Stevens, the memorial tablets for ministers, loyal men and women members, servicemen who died in the country's service. But these symbols and memorials, valuable in themselves as reminders of the past are abstractions without power unless they point to something beyond themselves.

What do you see in Church has another level of inquiry. What makes the Church significant to you? Where in your scale of values is the niche for the Unitarian Society of Plainfield?

Did you read the news story about the saloon in New York City which had to move when its building was taken for urban renewal? There was debate by city and federal housing authorities as to whether or not the tavern was a "social institution worth saving." Then after a period, the decision was made – the saloon was valued as a social institution and would be permitted to rent space in the new project when building was completed. Meanwhile, temporary quarters across the street would be rented. The happy customers helped move bar stools and tables across the street, one of them making a most interesting comment: "If it wasn't for this place, God knows, I’d have to go to church to find any of the boys."

What do you see in Church? An out-distanced runner-up to a convivial pub, or something else? Is the Church no more than second choice as a gathering where warm fellowship and high spirits prevail? This sermon was planned keeping in mind the special congregational meeting of the members called for next Sunday evening, May 1, to encourage the discussion of our Society's role in the affairs of the U.U.A., particularly bearing on the General Resolutions presented for vote at the Annual Meeting of the U.U.A. General Resolutions dealt with current matters of political, economic and social controversy, the intent being that the delegates of the U.U.A. general assembly shall be known for their stand in an effort to inform the member societies and to be publicly influential. I always have and still do support the principle and practice of General
Resolutions; but I believe I am receptive to changes in procedure which will increase effectiveness.

A comment by Professor Thomas Mahan of Boston University (TCRECORD, p. 330, Feb. 66), although directed toward public education, is inferentially relevant to religious institutions:

"An examination of the present situation indicates that the school is a bulwark of the status quo and tends to reflect through its policy-making board the power elite of the community....
"This tendency of tradition and structure to become autonomous and divorce themselves from goals or vital needs is found in other institutions – academic, ecclesiastical, governmental or industrial – but its end result is the concretization of the roles within the institution such that individuals must yield their spontaneity or run the risk of ostracism."

There would be considerable disagreement as to whether or not such a criticism is germane to our kind of religious society. What do you think?

With such background notes, I would attempt to make the following points about our kind of voluntary society of free individuals:

1) To maintain the Status Quo is to ensure either the termination or weakness of the Society as an effective religious organization.

2) The idea of covenant is as true a measure of our reason for being as is the emancipation of the individual from creedal requirements.

3) Individual freedom and group consensus are neither self-canceling nor a contradiction in terms.

1) Just to maintain the status quo is to ensure either the termination or the growing weakness of the society as a religious organization. There is little doubt in my mind that a rigid law governs social institutions – change, or diminish and die. Difficulty arises because many of us find it easier to resist change or remain inert to the need for change.

The famed psychologist, Dr. Carl Rogers, former president of the American Psychological Association in a meeting last Winter in California, made the assertion that the necessity to change, as well as the resistance to change, is a reality increasingly recognized by the behavioral scientists. Noting that "from time immemorial man's culture has been oriented toward preservation of the status quo," it can no longer survive on that basis. Unless change becomes a central part of our belief, in Dr. Roger's words, "ours is a doomed civilization."

When we think on the matter, we will perceive that change, rather than a static condition, has always been the major factor in the life of this Society, as well as any other Unitarian or Universalist society which has maintained vigor. This Church was completed in 1892, but persons who knew it only as it was then, would be surprised by the number of changes that have occurred. The Robinson and Stevens windows replaced former ones – these were changes. The pulpit, lectern and chancel arrangements represent changes; so do rugs and decorations. The memorial bronze plates have been placed since the building was completed. These are changes. The church school addition, the Stevens memorial room, represent changes from what was formerly acceptable. A realistic look at program activities as well as building facilities would surely confirm the proposition that the status has never "quoed" for a very long period. Beyond doubt, the rate of change has accelerated in recent years for this is the nature of our times.

We should not permit over-anxiety about particular changes to overwhelm the reality that survival, and growth in significance as well as numbers, demands unflagging alertness to the revised requirements of what a free society, operating under self-imposed discipline, should be and do.

Joseph Wood Krutch, retired Columbia professor and perceptive lover of wildlife commented, "Evolutionists always point out that any animal species that comes to be dependent upon a particular feature of its environment is in danger of extinction. The ivory-billed woodpecker disappeared because he could not survive without that abundant supply of decaying trees that had been eliminated from our well-managed forests." ("The American Scholar" Spring 66, p.182).

So in human society in general and any particular society – we survive through adaption to changing conditions. If we choose to exert our efforts, we have some power to control the direction of change, rather than letting change control us.

Some of you know one of my favorite stories – one I heard from Dr. Leonard Meade, V.P. of Tufts University when we were both serving on a UUA committee. It seems that at one of England's venerable universities, perhaps Oxford, perhaps Cambridge, there had been agitation for several hundred years to inaugurate a certain change. Beginning early in the 14th century, at the annual faculty meeting, a minority recommended that peacocks be allowed to roam the lawns and quadrangles on the theory that the beauty and stateliness of the peacocks would add grace and charm to the university setting.

Although proposed every year, the recommendations for the innovation of peacocks were not soon adopted. Finally, early in the 20th century, the minority had become a majority, the resolution passed, the peacocks were acquired and allowed to wander the campus in all their style and beauty.

But after the third year of their acquisition, doubts began to be raised. The beauty of the peacocks was more than offset by the nuisance of noise and mess. So at the faculty meeting in the fourth year, a recommendation was proposed that the peacocks be removed from the campus. Immediately a dignified professor secured the floor, "Mr. Chairman, I object to such hasty, unseemly change – why we've ALWAYS had peacocks."

2) The idea of a covenant is as true a measure of our reason for being as is the emancipation of the individual from creedal requirements. Our covenant is the by-laws under which we function as the 1st Unitarian Society of Plainfield; by-laws defining the procedures for decisions for the direction and emphasis of our program, how the money shall be allocated, what directions the Society shall set, speaking for itself, to the general public, the Unitarian Universalist Association or any other institution or body. Our covenant claims no supernatural basis as did the ancient covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but it is a covenant members accept. What is decided by the required vote is the official position of the Society until it is repealed, or revised by the Society.

The historical roots and present justification for such a Society are found not in magic, miracle or even ecclesiastical tradition alone, but in the logical necessities of the worth of the human individual. Franklin Littell, a historian of the Church cites an instructive example from English history, in his book, THE FREE CHURCH (p. 23):

"A case was before the high court which involved the king’s prerogative, and James I forbade the matter to be judged. Relying upon the Roman legal concepts of the king as the source of law, he considered the judges to be 'lions under the throne.' All submitted except the Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke. Coke stated boldly that he would resign rather than let that doctrine stand: the king was subject to the constitution of the land the same as any other man. The death of Charles I thirty-three years later is witness to the fact that the Stuarts learned the lesson with difficulty. But from Coke’s stand to equal justice under the law is but a step."

So with our Society – any other government is wrong for us except that of a covenant of the members feathering together and abiding by the results of parliamentary process. There are always decisions supported by a majority and opposed by a minority. But it is in the process of clarification by discussion and questioning that we become better informed on the courses we should follow and the decisions that seem proper.

This process of constitutional covenant is not only justified by our cultural roots in the evolution of law and the ethical demands of religion, but also in our age of impersonal technology it is a pressing necessity.

Just one example may illustrate this point. In an article on computers, (Max Bill, p. 312, "American Scholar") I read that computers will not serve human, social needs when much interpretation is required. An interesting example is the story of the computing machine used in a test case for translating a text from English to Russian and back to English. When the text came back in English, it was a completely different version of the original which had read, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The final translation read, "the ghost is ready but the meat is raw." What is apparent in this somewhat ludicrous story is that somebody must take the responsibility for interpretation for the choice of medium and for the process which will achieve resolution on matters in dispute.

Without the congregational process which agrees upon definitions and clarifies propositions through debate before choices are voted, our individual freedom, in which we take so much pride, may be victimized by considerable misunderstanding of content and misinterpretation of motive.

3) Individual freedom and group consensus are neither self-canceling nor a contradiction in terms. I have no wish to dismiss as no problem that which is difficult. How can I be free if I must abide by the will of the membership? If I vote against the notion of resolutions on political affairs by a society, is not my freedom limited if the majority disagrees?

Of course this is the problem of any democratically motivated government. Lincoln once asked, "whether a government must be too strong for liberty or too weak to exist." (see Charles Phillips paper)

As one who is conscious of the great debt owed by anyone who has the privilege of the free pulpit, I also know that a free pulpit is no longer enough, if it ever was. When a majority so chooses, the Society should speak for itself. The impact on the issues of our times is immeasurably greater when a Society speaks as well as the minister. Furthermore, the minister may not be equipped or may not choose to speak-out on issues which the religious society should discuss and seek majority opinion. Then too, in the person-to-person relationships in a religious society, we need first-hand knowledge of how our fellow-members think on important issues. Studies made by the Canadian Peace Research Institute indicate that "people are influenced not only by what they themselves think, but also by what they believe others think." If we are to be influenced by what others think, the healthiest way for this to happen is to know first-hand what others think about the issues of the church and the world rather than be guided by an uncertain influence based on what we assume that they think.

Now there are consequences occasionally of dispute and conflict in such face-to-face honesty in a religious society. Organizational forms need to he developed, and can be developed in which the majority can be known for its convictions and a minority known for its dissent.

A real advantage in such process emerges because we are all more likely to advance convictions based on a substance of fact and reason rather than opinions triggered by feelings. In his revealing autobiography, MARKINGS, the late Dag Hammarskjold may have been alluding to this type of group interchange when he wrote, (p.64):

"lack of character – all too easily we confuse a fear of standing up for our beliefs, a tendency to be more influenced by the convictions of others than by our own, or simply a lack of conviction – with the need that the strong and mature feel to give full weight to the arguments of the other side, A game of hide-and-seek: when the Devil wishes to play on our lack of character, he calls it tolerance, and when he wants to stifle our first attempts to learn tolerance, he calls it lack of character."

As part of a minority, the dissenter will at times feel that group action authorized by a majority is incompatible with a religion based on individual freedom of belief. The right of a minority to speak on public issues, for example, even when plainly indicating it is speaking for itself specifically, is questioned by some who point to the majority rule principle in a democratic society. Yet the majority has voted to set up the conditions in which the smaller group can speak and act.

Of course procedures are sometimes confusing and thorns are as natural as roses. But an old illustration is still true – democracy is like a raft – it manages to stay afloat, but the passengers' feet are always wet.

All these complex questions need continuing confrontation, interchange of conviction and equitable, organizational resolution. Yet for our kind of society in our kind of time, another of Hammarskjold’s aphorisms rings truly, "In our era, the road to holiness necessarily passes through the world of action."

In a lecture on "the sources of human nature," Dr, George Wald, who is a professor of biology at Harvard University, (reported in N Y Times, Mar 66), supporting his proposition that many human behavior patterns have evolved from those of animals, described the social behavior of bees. He had found that by certain dance routines a bee can tell other bees where it has found a rich store of nectar: "...dances are also used in searching for a site for a new hive. Worker bees fan out in this hunt. When they find a likely place, they return and dance before the swarm. The better the spot, the more prolonged and intense the dance,"

Our human social behavior has the advantage (I assume it is an advantage) of being able to communicate by speech, rather than being limited attempting to transmit meanings by dance and gesture. But there is this parallel, the more significant the issue, the more prolonged and intense is the discussion likely to be. The essential ingredients are persistent communications in the setting of goodwill and mutual respect.

One of our more popular and relevant hymns is by Samuel Johnson, which we sing to the tune of "Vienna." You may recall the last verse,

Life of ages richly poured
Love of God, unspent and free,
Flow still in the prophet's word
And the people's liberty.

The peoples’ 'liberty.' What can this possibly mean unless it is structured in a covenant society whose deliberations and decisions as a group express and influence the inevitable dynamisms of social forces in life today in our community and everywhere beyond its bounds? These are some of the reasons why I believe in the principle that our society should make its influence felt in the process of our Unitarian Universalist Association, General Assembly, taking stands on issues in public dispute.

If we are in earnest about sustaining an effective society, then we will not worry about change as such. Rather we will be concerned that the emphases we make, the directions to which we point and the actions we take will create for this Church Society a distinctive excellence which will draw men and women unto it because of its serious and effective grappling with the life of the individual and his rights and the life of society and its needs.

Soon it will be Summer Conference time. Perhaps some will again visit our Unitarian Universalist conference on Star Island among the Isles of Shoals. We remember our visit. The evening service in the little Fishermen's Chapel is a profoundly moving occasion and an authentic symbol of how our movement should function. At ten o'clock, each person, with lighted candle or lantern, climbs the stone steps toward the chapel on the hill. The church is dark; it has no lights. As each worshiper enters with his light, the interior becomes progressively brighter. When everyone is present for worship, it is fully lighted, warmly, brightly. When the service is over, each departs, carrying his own light. When the last worshiper has left, the chapel is dark again.

This symbolizes our Societies. The elimination of darkness depends upon the light each brings to worship and work. But it takes all the lights to fully brighten the Church; the individual alone would hold but a tiny flame flickering in a great dark; but when all bring their lighted tapers together, the gathered, common, shared light dispels the darkness.