Let The Church Be ... What?

December 3, 1967
Plainfield

Let The Church Be ... What?

What holds this religious society together? What attitudes should prevail? We are various persons with unlike responses to minister, worship, denominational trends, administration, ideas, communication, action. What do you want this religious society to be? What I say this morning is a summary of my present views.

In the Unitarian church service, there are those who attend because they seek intellectual stimulation. Table 6 of the Goals Report indicates this is the prime cause of persons attending – 74.4% of those surveyed indicated this was very important, and 23.1% indicated it was somewhat important; only 2.5% believed intellectual stimulation to be not important. The desire to be intellectually stimulated outranked the desire for fellowship by 10% and led other reasons – celebrating common values, group experience of worship, music and aesthetics, motivation to serve others – by up to 20 percentage points.

One could therefore conclude that the intellectual presentation of provocative ideas is the leading justification for Unitarian worship. Certainly our traditions provide some precedence for the position that our service should be the seed-starter of dialogue, the stimulus to excellent conversation, the productive center from which the interplay of ideas results in individual growth, and occasionally, some influence on society.

In all candor, I wonder how authentic this predominant generality is? Pride of intellect, particularly if there is more form than substance to the basis for pride, can be but a well-covering arrogance. There are those who classify the ideas they agree with as intellectual and interesting. Ideas which do not interest them are labeled as abstruse, boring, or offensive. There are those among us who quite frankly say that they choose to stay away when the theme is one they oppose or about which they have no current concern. If you purr intellectually only when your pet ideas are stroked, then the Unitarian prideful claim of intellectual leadership needs more objective appraisal. There are great ideas stirring in the world which are not adequately discussed either in the U.S. News and World Report or I.F. Stone’s Weekly – or for that matter, in the Goals Committee Report of the U.U. A.

And so I suggest to you that the need for ideas has never been more acute. Furthermore, that true dialogue involves the art of listening as well as assertion. And another furthermore, an idea is not necessarily trivial or worthless because it is not of immediate and pressing interest to you.

There are those who believe that the Sunday worship service should provide comfort, inspiration, uplift. I agree. We live in a world where many times comfort is needed to mend torn feelings. The disillusions of the day require constant inspiration in order to persist with the tasks that are ours. In a world where we are put down frequently enough. we need to be uplifted to gain sight of new and fairer perspectives. We need comfort, inspiration, and uplift.

But if in reality, comfort, inspiration, and uplift are words to indicate a belief that nothing irritating or disturbing should ever be referred to in the sanctuary of worship, why then of course it is disease, not health, to want comfort, inspiration, or uplift, when these are disassociated from the social order. For it is in the social order that men, women, and children live in tears and laughter; where they are wracked by injustice; where they are shaken by evidences of man’s inhumanity to man; where they are afflicted by the callousness of others; where they are blocked by stubborn, selfish advocates of an antiquated status quo.

So it makes a great deal of difference if by comfort, inspiration, and uplift, one really means an escape from those issues of life which are uncomfortable to confront with conviction. It makes a great deal of difference if my comfort, inspiration, and uplift, one really intends to avoid that which is dirty, but real, sad, or presenting a choice to be made. When such evasion is why there is the wish for comfort in any religious society, what seems to be the perfume of sanctity will actually be the smell of decay.

Should the church be a place for friendship and fellowship? Should not our halls and rooms be the place where friendship between like-minded persons are established and cultivated? The easy answer is, yes.

I know of one of our Unitarian churches where the slogan for more than 100 years has been, “here, let no man be a stranger.” But in spite of that, many persons told me how cold was the attitude toward visitors and newcomers. One Unitarian I met a couple of years ago had moved to several cities successively. Rather uniformly she accepted the fact that when she attended the Unitarian church for the first time, she would not be greeted warmly or introduced around in the coffee hour. So she made a practice of breaking into the little in-group circles, introducing herself, and establishing her place by her own initiative, rather than expecting to be welcomed.

A colleague of mine, beginning his ministry in a Unitarian church, discovered that the social attitudes were no less cold than the New England climate of the area. The persons who gathered to worship remained detached from one another, going their separate ways, with few greetings or signs of friendship. Deciding to attempt some warming efforts, he consulted with the board chairman in an effort to get some practices established which might create more fellowship. The board chairman said, “Young man, if we Unitarians here in [B....] wanted to know one another better, don’t you think we would have done something long before you arrived on the scene?”

From some of the discussions sponsored by the Adult Program, the message comes through rather clearly that newcomers here feel that there is coldness, a deficiency in welcome, an indifferent attitude being expressed to newcomers.

This is not experienced by everyone, but certainly by some. If you are a veteran member of one month, or one generation, then you do not need any exhortation from me to decide whether or not we are a friendly church. Furthermore I don’t know any area of church which requires less organization than being friendly. This is something anyone can do. No board decisions or congregational vote is required at all.

Should this church be a place of friendship and fellowship? Of course. Can such an atmosphere be coerced by a minister, committee, or board? Of course not. Some enabling practices can be adopted, but the essential friendly spirit is either here or it is not.

Is the church the place for social action? More needs to be said at this time on this aspect of church life than about the other subjects to which I have referred. First, because the principle and nature of social action has become a vital and sharp issue in all religious institutions. Second, because of the traditional freedom of the Unitarian Universalist to disassociate himself from the commitments of other persons, the issue is central to us, both as a continental denomination and a local society.

For several years in marches, pickets, demonstrations, public stands, there has been considerable visibility of clergymen, nuns, and laymen explicitly there because of their religious convictions. The March on Washington in 1963, the Selma-Montgomery March the following year, and peace parades are instances which come to mind readily.

A news correspondent repeated the story which seems symbolic of the need among those who march and picket. Plainclothes officers were trying to gain entrance to an illegal narcotics party. “When the policemen knocked at the door, a voice inside called for identification. The answer, ‘Man, we’re looking for the action.’ The door opened and the police were welcomed.” There are those who believe that the door to authentic religion in our time is where the (social) action is.

Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, in a speech this year (Christian Science Monitor, 4/14/67) said, “‘The Church should not be timid about soiling its hands in an effort to grapple with social events and responsibilities.’ Senator Percy called upon churchgoers to involve themselves in the social and political affairs of our times. ‘The Church must lead not only in religion but in life. It must minister not only to the whole spirit but to the whole man, the whole community. It must be relevant as well as reverent.’”

In what ways was Senator Percy correct? Would you agree with the late Dag Hammarskjold who wrote in MARKINGS, “In our era, the road to holiness necessarily passes through the world of action.”

In the world of organized religion, this METHOD of action is the most debated question. A prominent Christian churchman, the Archbishop of York, wrote, “one of the most central issues confronting Christianity today is whether it should deal primarily with the saving of souls or with the achievement of social justice in the community.”

The linkage between religion and sweeping changes in the social order delights some, but disturbs many. As an example, a nun marching in a civil rights demonstration was attacked by white racists who cheered when her blood spilled on her bib. Generally, while those active in action issues are highly visible, and those who are angry at them are loudly vocal, the great majority of church people seem indifferent to the radical, social movements in which religious professionals seem over-represented.

Such meager generalizations about social action generally are only introductory to Unitarianism in particular.

The Goals Report is some indication of Unitarian Universalist feeling about social action. Table 30 indicates that 48.4% consider social action very important and 43.7% important – that is 92.1% believe social action is at least important. When Table 37 is reviewed, the statistic is that 27.8% strongly approve public stands by the congregation and 45.9% approve – a total of 73.7% of Unitarians sampled who believe in group stands by the congregation.

I agree with this majority, as I have said on more than one occasion. My belief is that there are issues important enough for a corporate group of Unitarian Universalists to say this WE believe, here WE stand. Furthermore I am convinced that a group statement has the power to influence community, state, and national attitudes and decisions. I cannot prove or demonstrate this, anymore than he who disagrees can prove to me that only individual expression and action have influence. Then, too, I believe that dialogue and debate pointed toward decision ought to be a more informed and searching interchange than discussions which cannot be concluded with an opportunity to say aye or nay, or to stand to vote for one’s conviction.

But it is clear to me that the majority of the members of this society do not agree. The majority believe that the principle of individual freedom is so precious that a group stand infringes on that right even when established by proper meeting procedures. Now I am neither dismayed by being in the minority nor chagrined that this Society does not seem to be typical of the Unitarian societies sampled in the matter of group stands and social action.

Freedom is still basic – the individual Unitarian has the right and should assume the responsibility to arrive at his own conclusions about religion, and the application, if any, to the issues of the social order. Euripides has Pylades say (from Iphigenia in Tauris, p. 51),

“Let us forget
All but the one word Freedom, calling us
To live, not die by altars barbarous.”

I can appreciate the Unitarian who asserts that he wants no other Unitarian to speak for him.

But when I assert that freedom is still basic, there is a twin freedom, of equal necessity to this or any other Unitarian Universalist society. That is the freedom of the Society to act as a corporate body in a properly called and conducted meeting. This too is as historic in our religious traditions as the right of freedom of individual belief. This parallel, equal, freedom of the right of the religious community to speak and act gives the only authentic meaning I know to religious organization. When I am in the minority in a membership vote, other Unitarians are not speaking for me. Rather, the majority speaks or does not speak as a majority.

I am not arguing that any one of you must believe as the majority sampled, that a congregation should take a stand. Rather I am maintaining that the Society has the freedom to consider, vote, or not consider, not vote on any matter properly brought before it; and that there can be no substantial objection to this freedom principle.

If such is not a valid position, then what is called in the democratic method in human relations can never be more than a scattered collection of opinions, never capable of much clear focus.

The late Teilhard de Chardin, one of the most cogent of modern thinkers, observed that even as the early Greeks believed the greatest speculative issue to be the problem of the one and the many, so the sharpest social issue of modern times is the relationship of the individual and the community. I believe that recognition of the twin freedom in the Unitarian Society – the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the Society, provides a working model for the resolution of this dilemma.

Let the Church be ... What?
The setting for intellectual stimulation? In part, but not in whole.
The source of spiritual comfort? In part, but not in whole.
The place for friendship and fellowship? In part, but not in whole.
The impetus for social action, whether as an aggregation of individuals or a congregation of members? In part, but not in whole.

All these, and more (I have not mentioned religious education) are gathered in the church as sanctuary. Let the church be sanctuary (sanctuary is a word I have always been reluctant to use, because in our Judeo-Christian tradition, sanctuary represents ideas I resist. In the Jewish tradition, the sanctuary was the Holy of Holies, the innermost chamber of Solomon’s Temple, where only the High Priest could enter. In Christian usage, sanctuary has meant the altar section where only the priest can offer the sacrifice of the Mass.) But increasingly, I have come to accept a truer meaning of sanctuary – the most sacred part of any religion – that which is sacred and inviolable; an area that may not be invaded [even] with consent.

In that sense, let the church be the sanctuary for all the hard-won ideas that the human family has achieved. Let the church be the sanctuary of hope whereby we dream and work to the end that the great ideas and goals of the human family will spread first to the edge and then overcome the center of all ills that men inflict upon one another.

Let the church be the sanctuary where we can face up to ourselves as we really are – light and shadow, commendable and condemnable; but ever persisting in the search for meanings beyond both the bouquets and brickbats of any given day. Let the skills and arts of the creative persons among us be a lighted fuse leading to such imagination which could explode with new bursts of creativity.

Let the church be the sanctuary whereby we confront the sharp edges of dissent – for freedom to hold diverse opinions is one of those hard-won ideas which we must protect and defend.

But also let us remember the idea of brotherhood – too much an abstraction and an insufficiently realized abstraction still.

Let the church be the sanctuary for the confrontation of the contradiction between individual freedom and brotherhood. For brother is a family concept – and who in a participating family can ever be wholly free?

This is the painful dilemma we face under such phrases as “group social action,” “Can the congregation speak for me?”, “should the membership take a group stand?” Two superb ideals – individual freedom, human brotherhood. Let the church be the sanctuary whereby we can reckon creatively, and as friends, with the interplay between these two great goals.

Let the church be the Creative Center whereby we guard the noblest traditions and cherish the finest hopes.

Just one caution – we must not forget. Thomas Becket’s great protagonist was Henry II, a competent king who organized many practices which became valuable institutions [and] important precedents. It was said of this notable king, however, that “he mourned the dead with a grief far greater than he loved the living.” (R. Winston, BECKET, p. 53)

We guard great values; we dream great dreams. But as we uphold these values, let us love the living in the next pew, in this membership, in our cities, and all across the world. Let us be among the human forces in such a creative center of accomplishment and search.