"How a Broken Place Becomes Strong"

What every history of a Unitarian Universalist church invariably reveals

     is that conflict has played a critical and formative role

          in building our tradition.

Conflict has helped us to define ourselves

    and to articulate our differences.

But conflict is also a powerful emotional dynamic

     and those who enter into it

          are affected by the experience.

We feel its impact for a long time afterwards - even for hundreds of

years.

 

The Unitarian church in New England

    emerged in the early 1800’s

        out of a series of schisms

              between liberal and conservative members

                    of local parishes.

The differences were theological,

     not political.

The liberal wing was ready to separate and declare itself Unitarian.

 

One famous Massachusetts schism

    known as the Dedham controversy -

        the conservatives had withdrawn from the church,

             taking the church property -

                communion silver and valuables -

                    with them.

The remaining liberal minority sued the conservatives

    for the disputed property.

 

The court stunned the public with the decision

    to award the assets of the church to the liberals.

The losing conservative members

     summed up the outcome with the bitter retort,

          "They kept the furniture,

               but we kept the faith."

The liberals affirmed their Unitarian identity

     and funded by the assets

        the court had awarded them,

              established what is now an historic Unitarian church,

                    filled with beautiful antiques.

 

Such events were nothing less than foundational

     to our tradition.

So it should come as no surprise

     that our Santa Monica congregation

          has undergone its own schisms too.

And though our conflicts have not been as explicitly theological

     as those of the early Unitarians,

          they have been passionately ideological

               and equally eventful.

In fact, members of this congregation

    once felt their differences so strongly

         that they left to form a new church too.

 

What causes such schisms to happen?

Community practices encourage individual expression:

     about everything.

What may initially appear to be a benign decision

    can swiftly escalate to controversy.

According to the records,

    our predecessors once called a congregational meeting

         to debate whether to plant a grass lawn or ivy

              in front of their new church building.

 

Not all disputes are benign.

This congregation suffered a painful schism

     over the signing of the loyalty oath.

Some of you were members of this church

    when this conflict took place,

         and you may remember it well.

 

In 1953, the California legislature voted a new law

     that required tax exempt organizations

        to sign a statement confirming

            that they did "not advocate the overthrow of the government

                by force or violence."

This was a time,

    according to the church history written by Ernie Pipes,

         when "the climate of McCarthyism

              and tensions around civil liberties and social action

                   were bringing dissension to many congregations."

Tensions were not confined to religious communities.

People suffered in an environment of suspicion

     and distrust.

Here in Los Angeles,

     careers and lives were jeopardized -

        some ruined -

           as individuals were singled out as "un-American."

Our Board of Directors faced a difficult choice

    with the loyalty oath.

The minister at that time - Howard Matson -

     opposed signing.

So did many members of the congregation.

The Board itself was divided,

     eventually voting 5-4 in favor.

The chair cast the tie-breaking vote.

 

Board minutes reveal that the Directors grappled painfully

    with the responsibility they felt

        for the security of their church.

To defy the law,

    they feared,

        would be to jeopardize our institution.

Legal counsel for the American Unitarian Association

    studied the law

          and advised churches to comply,

               but to reserve the right to contest its

constitutionality.

In a letter to the California governor and legislators,

     the Board chair wrote

          that our church has "signed the loyalty affirmation required…"

                but that our church,

                    "while affirming the right of a democratic government

                        to the loyalty of its people,

                            denies the efficacy of oaths in securing that loyalty.

Members of the church are of the conviction,"

    the letter continued,

         "that the required oath is a violation

                of the cherished American doctrine

                    of the separation of church and state."

The Board’s actions did not mitigate the conflict in the congregation.

The oath was signed and the letter sent

     after a congregational meeting resulted

       in another sharply divided vote.

The majority - sixty-four members -

    approved of the Board’s decision.

But thirty-five members did not.

 

The conflict did not end;

     it burgeoned.

Disagreements multiplied into disputes

    about the minister and membership.

Howard Matson resigned.

And so did half the congregation.

Many of the members who left

     became the founders of a new congregation,

          The Unitarian Society of Los Angeles West.

 

What lessons are we to learn

     from these painful events?

Clearly, a church community can suffer greatly

     from conflicts within.

The loyalty oath conflict, however,

     was instigated by an outside agent -

          an unconstitutional law that threatened basic assumptions

               about civil liberties

                    and the separation of church and state.

Our church was only one of many victims.

 

Still, the conflict broke us apart.

There are some strong opinions among us even now.

But time has passed and done its healing work.

And today we are stronger because of this experience.

 

Here is why:

We learned that freedom is self-expression,

     but that openness that has its costs.

We risk those costs

     so that individual differences can be respected.

Yet sometimes those differences cannot be resolved.

Then all we can do is move on.

 

Our congregational story also acknowledges

    the reality of brokenness,

          the sad but necessary truth

                that not everything or everyone

                    can stay together.

But acknowledging that truth

        is not the end of the story.

When things fall apart,

     other things are waiting to come together.

 

When you look at the history of the Unitarian church,

     you see a pattern of new communities forming

          as old ones break into two,

               sometimes three.

Differentiation and variety have resulted

    from these divisions.

In fact,

    this is how we have gained more members!

Dynamic change has been healthy for us.

It is how we have created an open and evolving faith.

The dynamic goes beyond

    schisms and new churches, however.

There is the issue

     of how people come back together

        after their community has been broken.

We may avidly seek self-expression

     and heartily enjoy controversy,

          but even the boldest of people get hurt.

Not all of us are comfortable with conflict, either.

We all need to know how to heal the wounds

     that come from being who we are together.

 

The conflicts and divisions I describe to you today

     are not unique to our church community.

Our world is full of broken places.

They are part of life.

People leave and we move on.

 

And yet there remains a yearning for reconciliation,

     for some way to come back together -

          not in defeat,

               not even in compromise,

                    but as part of some larger whole

                         that has room for all of us,

                              with all our differences.

The Unitarian Society of Los Angeles West,

     the new congregation that grew out of our division,

          disbanded several years ago.

What our history tells us

     is that eventually our two churches found common cause

          and collegiality with one another.

We shared our faith, despite our history.

The tent was big enough for everyone.

 

And so we moved on.

We cannot say how many people needed to forgive -

     or be forgiven -

        as a result of that conflict.

But long after the controversy,

     the debates,

          and the schisms are over,

               what we will remember

                    is whether we have.

 

Tonight at sundown is the beginning of Yom Kippur.

The Jewish people wisely set aside one day a year

     specifically to ask and to give forgiveness.

They recognize that a community cannot survive

     unless the people move on

          and let go of their differences with one another.

Although we have no ritual for forgiveness,

     our need for it is just as great.

Our survival depends on it too.

A community comes back together when forgiveness

     is freely and generously exchanged.

 

Many years - almost fifty -

    have passed since the wounding debate

          over the loyalty oath.

Let us hope

    that we never have to make

        such a choice ever again.

But if we do,

     we can face the challenge with the full awareness

          that there is no choice and no future

               unless we are prepared

                    to forgive each other our differences.

And if we ever start a new church -

     and who knows, perhaps some day we will -

          I hope it is the result of an abundance -

               and not a breaking -

                    of faith with one another.

 

If we are to be free,

     we must be willing to see our differences

          and hold them with conviction.

If we should break,

     we must learn how to heal.

And if we are to heal,

     we must forgive.

That is how a broken place becomes strong.

That is how people come back together,

     and once again,

          know that we are one.

References for this sermon include The Unitarians and the Universalists, by David Robinson (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985); "Unforgiven," by William L.Hawkins, in Christian Cenury, August 14-27, 2002; and The Past as Prologue, 70th Anniversary Commemorative Booklet (Santa Monica, CA, 1997).