"Evolving Faith "

READING

The reading comes from the Journal of Liberal Religion, an article titled “The Free Church: Revolution and Experiment,” by Unitarian Universalist minister Brent A. Smith. He makes the connection between the founding of our country and the independent “congregational” churches of New England. These churches evolved into the Unitarian Universalist congregations of today.

“The year was 1781. In what could never had been expected or foreseen, a ragamuffin group of revolutionaries had concluded a struggle of biblical proportions and found they had gained the freedom of the other side of their own "Red Sea." But, the body of water was the Chesapeake Bay, the place was Yorktown, and instead of Moses facing down Ramses, it was George Washington and General Cornwallis, who was standing in for King George.

“Individuals fight wars for as many different reasons as there are individuals, and it is a heady assumption to say that all of these rebels were fighting for the same thing; especially in that blacks and women could not have registered resistance to British political rule with the same expectation of outcome as did white men.

“Yet, what would be an equivalent misreading would be to deny or ignore the intimate relationship between the idea of personal liberty, and the initiative and outcome of this remarkable revolution. The band that day at Yorktown piped and drummed the tune, "The World Turned Upside Down," and indeed it had! The modern world had never seen a political experiment where the church and the governing state were separated; where inalienable rights propelled citizens towards self-government instead of submission to the divine rights of kings; where individual liberty and the independence of the free spirit were so prized that civil authority would be created to protect and eventually extend it; and, where the public square and the private sphere would be progressively revolutionized down to our own day. . . .

“The world had turned upside down in the late 1700's because of an experiment in transforming the idea of freedom into a political reality. But the experiment in transforming the idea of freedom into a reality had its roots in the generations before. We, in the tradition of the Free Church, are more than just heirs of this revolutionary experiment. The religious tradition we have chosen is one of its chief originators and protectors. It was no coincidence that a political revolution concerning liberty would occur on this continent. In many ways it was prefigured every time one of the numerous independent churches of New England gathered for worship.

"Congregationalism, by its very nature, grants sovereign power to no one," Yale historian Harry Stout pointed out in citing congregational polity as the cornerstone of the revolution, "So we find people in New England in these churches playing democratic politics from the start, without ever calling it that. As a matter of fact, I think if you were to stop the average New Englander in the early 18th century and mention the word politics, they would know that word, but would think instinctively of church politics.”

SERMON

Anyone who is new to Unitarian Universalism discovers – with surprise and even disappointment – that our liberal faith has conservative religious roots. We originated from the Puritan free churches of New England, where devout Christians sought freedom from oversight, but not from theology. Our forebears were Calvinists, resolutely laboring under the burden of human depravity and God’s watchful eye, praying for salvation. Yet they also had a vision of themselves as a self-governing and independent community that “grants sovereign power to no one.”[i] This vision launched a radical experiment, the congregational church, in which individual freedom and democratic process eventually transformed Calvinist theology into the faith we practice today.

But that is not all that happened. As the church evolved from its Calvinist beginnings into a movement that was broader and more pluralistic than anyone could have imagined in Puritan times, so did our country. Brent Smith explains, “the idea of transforming freedom into a reality” that began in the church is the same idea that inspired the American revolution.[ii]

This is something good to know about Unitarian Universalism at a time when same sex couples have gained the right to civil marriage here in California, and the Democratic presidential primary has delivered a nominee who is a person of color. These developments have also come about because of the original vision of inalienable rights, individual liberty, and independence of the free spirit, that is central to our democratic and our congregational tradition. From revolution to revolution, our faith has brought about positive change in our society.

Of course, if you are no longer new to Unitarian Universalism and have had any experience with leadership in the church, or have simply tried to get something done here – then you know the downside of navigating a system that “grants sovereign power to no one.” A church’s strength can also be its weakness. Internal change does not come easily to us. While no one can tell us what to do, sometimes we can’t decide either.

Every church in the congregational tradition has gone through agonizing protracted debates over matters both large and small. It’s no mystery why congregational decisions are fraught with endless second-guessing and process corrections. Our concept of participation is exhaustive – and exhausting. Sometimes we run out of energy before we have accomplished our task. At our worst, we can be consumed by self-examination of our conduct while neglecting the needs we really ought to address.

Some members become specialists in group process, while others try to bypass them. It’s not easy to do things when power is embedded in a group, rather than a single person or role. These are institutional hazards. It’s reassuring to know that “the average” 18th century church-goer was also caught up in congregational politics.

These observations come about, I suppose, because I am preparing to step down as your minister. I keep looking for ways to summarize what our faith is and can be. My experience of letting go – and the grieving that goes along with it – heighten both my sense of satisfaction and frustration.

This ambivalence is inherent in my position. As a minister, I have acted out of a sense of personal calling – a commitment to a vocation that also “grants sovereign power to no one.” And I have been called – to use the language of our heritage – by the congregation, using the democratic process, deciding by election.

So I am familiar with the challenging position of answering to no one and everyone at the same time. I have had the authority to speak from this pulpit and to lead rites of passage and worship, but not to run the church. And I have not spoken for you, unless you voted on a specific position and authorized your leaders to do so.

I haven’t chafed much under this arrangement. My orientation has always been more towards preserving relationships than accruing power. That is how I understand leadership.

Brent Smith points out in his essay that the two defining characteristics of the free church are first, that “each congregation calls its own ministers. Religious leadership is not a matter for ecclesiastical higher-ups, nor is it the province of civil authorities.”[iii] You are about to take on this responsibility when you begin your search for a new settled minister.

“Secondly,” Brent Smith writes, “each congregation determines its own criteria for membership. There are no necessary doctrinal or creedal boundaries that are common to free churches. It is the act of self-determination of membership that characterizes them.”[iv] Each of you has also exercised this self-determination, choosing to become a member, or not, discerning what is right for you.

These dynamics are central to who we are and how we behave towards each other. But they raise questions. Brent Smith asks, “What is the purpose of a church . . . using . . . relationships as a pathway to authentic religious fellowship?”[v] His answer: “. . . To institutionalize religious freedom; to liberate and cultivate the human spirit; to help each and every person become a fully functioning, free individual. The paradox of fulfilling a purpose and mission that yields individual religious liberty,” Smith adds, “is that it must be done in community. . . . It is relational. And, associations that concern freedom become religious when their creation and maintenance are seen as tasks mirroring the deepest, most profound orders of existence.”[vi]

Our faith has evolved through the practice of community. It’s how we got from 17th century Calvinism to 21st century Unitarian Universalism. It’s why we have championed human rights and then debated whether we should display a banner saying so. And it’s when we ask ourselves if we are taking two steps forward and one step back, that we sometimes have to admit we are. That is how we move forward together.

For anyone who has lived deeply into these dynamics, the truth is that it is both satisfying and frustrating, especially when something really needs to be done. Our commitment to “the independence of the free spirit,” to use Brent Smith’s language, and to democratic community, combined with our refusal to grant sovereign power to anyone, can look and behave at times like one big murky mess. And yet out of the chaos can emerge the light of reason, a broad consensus, and an elegant solution. It’s a mystery to me how we do it. Perhaps it is because we are “mirroring the deepest, most profound orders of existence.” Perhaps our faith is deeper and more profound than we realize. And its influence far greater than our modest membership numbers would suggest.

This is where I come down on the question of what it all means. The tensions that drive our tradition are essentially creative, requiring us to adapt and move forward in ways that are good for us and the world. Our weakness is that we don’t always know what to do with authority. We place our faith in the democratic process, which is the only authority many of us recognize. But even decisions made this way are questioned and sometimes revisited, undercutting the leadership roles we have established and the relationships at the center of it all. We have yet to articulate just how the community that holds us together also requires us to trust each other, and to give each other the power to maintain and grow our church together.

Everything I have done, or risked as your minister has come about because of the trust you have placed in me. I say, give more of that trust and that power to each other.

Long ago our faith inspired the revolution that created this democratic nation. Today it continues to advance our society, generating new rights and visions that make us all better people. What a hopeful time this is – or could be. And will be, if we live by our faith and move forward as we have always done.

______________________________

[i] Harry Stout, quoted in “The Free Church: Revolution and Experiment,” by Brent A. Smith. The Journal of Liberal Religion. Fall, 200. Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 1.

[ii] Brent a. Smith, “The Free Church: Revolution and Experiment,” p.1.

[iii] Ibid., p. 3, referring to the well known work by church historian Conrad Wright.

[iv] Ibid., p. 3.

[v] Ibid., p. 3.

[vi] Ibid., p. 5.

CLOSING WORDS

With gratitude for all that holds us together,
for our bond as people living a faith
that changes us and changes the world,
we go forward with confidence and trust,
in all that we can do.

From “The Journal of Liberal Religion.” Fall, 2000. Vol. 2, No. 1.