Ingredients of Transformation

February 5, 1967
Plainfield

Ingredients of Transformation

The concluding paragraph of CHRISTIANITY AND HISTORY, by historian Herbert Butterfield, reads thus (p. 145/6):

In regard to some of the most important things in life it is remarkable how little human beings know their liberty – how little they realize that the grand discoveries of the various inductive sciences still leave us free to range with the upper parts of our minds. In these days also when people are so much the prisoners of systems – especially the prisoners of those general ideas which mark the spirit of the age – it is not always realized that belief in God gives us greater elasticity of mind, rescuing us from too great subservience to intermediate principles, whether these are related to nationality or ideology or science. It even enables us to leave more play in our minds for the things that nature or history may still have to reveal to us in the near future. Similarly Christianity is not tied to regimes – not compelled to regard the existing order as the very end of life and the embodiment of all our values. Christians have too often tried to put the brake on things in the past, but at the critical turning-points in history they have less reason than others to be afraid that a new kind of society or civilization will leave them with nothing to live for. We are told by many that our new age needs a new mentality, but so often when one reads these writers further all that they really say is that if we don't do now the things they have been continually telling us to do since 1919 we shall have the atomic bomb and presumably deserve it. I have nothing to say at the finish except that if one wants a permanent rock in life and goes deep enough for it, it is difficult for historical events to shake it. There are times when we can never meet the future with sufficient elasticity of mind, especially if we are locked in the contemporary systems of thought. We can do worse than remember a principle which both gives us a firm Rock and leaves us the maximum elasticity for our minds: the principle: Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted."

Now - hear me out. I have not been struck by instant Christian orthodoxy. I could have carefully edited out the evangelical allusions, but did not, reading the entire paragraph in order to convey Butterfield’s point of reference for the Ingredients of Transformation, my subject today. While do not share Butterfield's particularistic Christian base, it is a point of view which can be expressed more universally than he indicated. Somewhere, Alfred North Whitehead made a similar observation but in words that resonate the strings of free religion. Authentic ways of living can be measured by reverence for the Symbolic Code and an openness to revision. These are the ingredients of transformation, not only for individual growth but basic to the achievement of a society better equipped to serve the living. From a base of reverence for the Symbolic Code and an openness to revision, I would attempt to make some measure of the manner in which varieties of conviction are creating "unrest in the Churches." Then I would speak about the Symbolic Code and an Openness to Revision being necessary theological foundations for religious institutions in transition. Then I will conclude with [a] comment that dealing with forces of unpredictable change calls for alertness and productivity, not drowsiness and passivity.

II – In the January 23, 1967 issue of U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, an article "The Unrest in the Churches" begins with the words, "Strong disquiet is developing in America's churches at this time."

First, one must always look with caution, if not skepticism, at a sweeping generalization of that nature. I'm reminded of the cartoon in the Christian Science Monitor; a depressed man obviously a top executive because of the size of his desk and the spaciousness of his office overlooking factory buildings and smokestacks, is sitting glumly staring at nothing, while outside the open door, one secretary is saying to another, "In the same mail he received an award as an industrialist and a warning as an air polluter."

The article, "The Unrest in the Churches," discussed social action with a built-in disapproval, so that it is not amiss to notice ... that there are also those who approve of what the magazine calls "the controversy over a growing trend among U.S. clergymen to mix into political issues of the day – civil rights, the Vietnam war, and others." A careful reader will note immediately that the verb used is in itself a bias word, "mix" into politics. But when several persons, separately, asked me if I had read the article, I decided to read for myself what was the basis for "The Unrest in the Churches."

The report is trivial and inadequate in its treatment, and indulges in slanted descriptions with which activists are labeled; e.g., describing Saul Alinsky as “a self-styled professional radical.” On the other hand, when a different point of view is quoted, the source is described without needling quotes, e.g., "Roger Hull, a Presbyterian layman, president of the Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York."

While most activists, so-called, are quoted in part sentences with dotted omissions, Mr. Hull received a full-sentence quotation, "Laymen see the church moving away from its basic mission – preaching the gospel to all men – to a preoccupation with civil affairs. While laymen strongly affirm the church's obligation to speak out on clear-cut moral issues, they view as erroneous the efforts to have the church take sides, as a corporate body on matters of a purely secular nature." This sounds impressive, until one reads it again and realizes that it is gibberish as far as moral direction is concerned. How can the church speak out on a "clear-cut moral issue" and NOT take sides? What are matters that are of a purely secular nature? War? Human dignity? Starvation? Candor by the President on crucial issues? Are these not moral issues?

The article concludes with a quotation from the Rev. Dr. David H.C. Read, who is described as a leading Presbyterian minister in New York City: "A Church that sets out to do the works of God, spreading into every area of life, yet neglecting the living center of belief, is doomed not to renewal, but decay. The passion to do the works of God must be inspired and controlled by a stronger and deeper belief." That too is an inspirational statement, but overlooks the prime motivation of Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, and Jewish Rabbis to get on the line and be known for their views. They have not neglected the living center of belief. Because of the living center of belief they have gone out of the chancel and into the streets. To go out on the streets is a more demanding test of belief than to remain in the sanctuary.

Just this week, it is reported that 2000 clergy and laymen were in Washington to protest the Vietnam war and urge the President to follow the advice he sought from U Thant and then ignored: To stop the bombing; to state that the NLF would be included as one of the negotiating parties and to establish a stand fast in order to set the scene for cease-fire and negotiations. I share the views of the protesters. Some of us who were not in Washington last week with the group of clergy will be making individual visits, to witness to these views. It is a most disturbing event that the President should openly and publicly seek the advice and help of U Thant to create the conditions for negotiations and then, when U Thant had obtained the information, to ignore the Secretary General, giving no reason for ignoring the advice asked for. In the 19th century, the elder Dr. Beecher in a prayer in Faneuil Hall in Boston went to the heart of the situation: "O Lord, preserve us from speaking evil of our public servants and especially save them from such wrong conduct as may call for such speaking on our part."

It would probably not be news; it would undoubtedly be disheartening to some of us, if a report were written on the thousands of churches which are not going where the action is; of the hundreds of thousands of clergymen, as well as laymen, who are amazing acrobats in remaining suspended in mid-air between the sides of an issue. A thorough study of “non action” and non-committal in religious institutions and among clergymen and laymen would be a most fascinating analysis. There is a chance that what has been referred to as "living center of belief," might be disclosed to be the "dead center of belief."

III – But beyond such current disputes, I believe that a reverence for the Symbolic Code and an openness to Revision represent a basis for a theology which will account adequately for social change. There are few who will dispute that we 1ive in an age of social change more intensified, more sweeping and more radical than any age in the recorded history of man.

For most religious groups, the symbolic code is more specific. Butterfield expressed the symbolic code for many Christians, "hold to Christ." As we have moved, historically, from Anti-Trinitarianism to Unitarianism and from beliefs in the salvation of all souls to faith in the universal dignity and worth of all human beings, our symbolic code has become more abstract.

There was a story (from the Xophers bulletin) that the famed architect-designer, Stanford White once shocked an editor by the high price he charged for a magazine design. "I'd say that was a pretty steep price for such a plain design, ''said the editor. "The price," said White, "was for knowing what to leave out." For those of us who have come to know Unitarianism Universalism, much of our devotion to it is because of what we can leave out – the dogmas and myths that were considered to be history, legends accepted as fact, institutional authority claimed on grounds of God's special revelation – these we can leave out. But we do have a symbolic code growing out of our traditions – we may use such words as freedom, reason, knowledge, character; unity amid diversity; the golden heresy of truth; religion of the inquiring mind. Although not a UU, the philosopher A.N Whitehead suggested the heart of our symbolic code in more polished language when he wrote (in RELIGION IN THE MAKING) "Progress in truth – truth of science and truth of religion – is mainly a progress in the framing of concepts, in discarding artificial abstraction or partial metaphors, and in evolving notions which strike more deeply into the "roots of reality." Our symbolic code has nothing to do with the "damned" and the "saved,"but has a great deal to do with the encouragement of the individual to fulfill his own way of measuring truth, not in isolation but protected by the democratic structure of the group. The first organized Universalist Church in America put this value of our symbolic code into specific language in the Charter of Compact wherein the members covenanted together: "Ninth: Whereas the privilege of choosing and professing one's own religion is inestimable: and in order to maintain that privilege unimpaired, in case any person associating with us should suffer persecution from the undue exercise of power, we do agree and resolve to afford him all legal means of extricating him from difficulty, and of enjoying that freedom which is held forth by the Constitution."

The language may be quaint, but the intent is clear. Each of us is the support of the other in his beliefs, not alone when we agree, but when we disagree. We do treasure a symbolic code for there are continuities in human history to be valued; there are traditions of worth and instructive lessons to be learned. Not the least of the heritage is that quality that John Gardner phrased so well in his book, SELF RENEWAL (p. 23): "In all subjects it means teaching habits of mind that will be useful in new situations – curiosity, open-mindedness, objectivity, respect for evidence and the capacity to think critically."

The second part of a theology of social change flows directly from our symbolic code – an openness to revision. This implies more than a method by which we can change our by-laws; This goes beyond attempts at variety and greater creativity in our worship services, although I believe such innovative efforts can be fine examples of openness. Openness extends as far as the sweeping statement by Butterfield, "and for the rest be totally uncommitted." There are no restrictions on the way our Society can operate within the protection of our symbolic code. Our individual beliefs are more than free; they are protected by the group. Our actions as a Society are defined and fulfilled by the members in covenant together. One could read remarkable differences if he were to compare the Society's minutes of six or seven decades ago with 1967; continuing and unmarred would be the symbolic code of freedom and the practice of covenant.

Openness is essential if we would maintain significant continuity. In the explosion of knowledge and communication which distinguish our times, we know that we must learn from the feedback coming to us from the sciences, the humanities, business, labor, and government. Finding more about how persons learn; why they respond; how one can influence decisions that affect those things we value most – all these represent areas of information and insight which may improve our effectiveness as we attempt to confront that which we must judge to be most important in human affairs. Paul Tillich may have been the craziest of visionaries when he wrote (SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, V. 3, p. 170) about “the power and desire to participate as a Church in everything created under all dimensions of life." – Or he might have been reaching for the kind of religious effort which will call forth the best of each one of us individually and together.

I do not know in what manner we will meet the now experiences which will inevitably occur. I do believe that the quality and productivity of our response and adjustment will be based on our devotion to the symbolic code and our openness to new events and novel circumstances.

At the beginning I said that the concluding observation would deal with the necessity of alertness to changing times. Again, the cartoonist supplies me with the illustration. It’s that one that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, 10/22/65, which pictures a sleepy bear outside his den, about to enter in for the winter's hibernation, saying, "Some winter I'm gonna stay awake just to see how those leaves get back up in the trees."

Not to have gone into hibernation is a habit of mind useful in new situations demanding novel answers and re-evaluated procedures. Critical observations are needed more in the human situation than by the hibernating bear. In a commencement address at Brandeis University, a year or so ago, James Reston said,

"Seldom in recent history has the American political community, confronted by all these perplexing problems of birth and employment, black men and white women, the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, needed the help of the intellectual community more than it does today.

"Personally, I think this is a pretty good fight to get in, whether you do it as teacher, preacher, journalist or government servant....

"It is a critical moment in the country's life as well as your own. We were nourished on the land and grew up by the rules of the frontier. Now we must adapt the habits of mind of an agrarian society to the age of the city.

"It will not be easy. For in such a time we are caught between the tides of the future, carrying us along irresistibly into deep and unfamiliar waters while the tug of the past is ever with us. We have been an acquisitive society and are now groping our way toward a more cooperative society where each man and woman must try to find new ways of living in a more crowded world."

We will need to be alert and productive, not drowsy and passive. We will keep ourselves free by the kind of society we maintain in this religious institution, in our community, nation and world. We may increasingly find ourselves involved in what formerly were called "secular" issues, and involved in ways that will alarm some and antagonize others. Yet how can free persons maintain a covenant society unless they have a concern for all the issues of our day that would detract from the values that sustain us? How can free persons maintain a covenant unless there is a determined effort to secure for everyone the peace, privilege and freedom we seek for ourselves? It is an openness to such goals that represents the ingredients of fine, rather than poor, transformation. Shakespeare had words for our unity amid diversity, when he had Canterbury say in Act 1 sc. 2 of HENRY V:

"As many arrows loosed several ways
Come to one mark; as many ways meet in one town;
As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea;
As many lines close in the dial's center –
So may a thousand actions, once afoot,
End in one purpose, and be all well borne
Without defeat."