COMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY – YOU DECIDE

by the Rev. Melanie Morel-Ensminger
North Shore Unitarian Universalist Congregation
Sunday, November 14, 2010

Once again the wheel of the year has turned and it is the time of year that North Shore’s Nominating Committee strives to fill all open leadership spots before the Annual Meeting, when the members will come together to decide together on new officers, a church budget for the next fiscal year, and any other important matters needing congregational discussion and decision. It has become commonplace to us as Unitarian Universalists; we take it for granted. We forget that our religious ancestors fought and some died for the right to decide on congregational matters within the local church. For Unitarian Universalists, there’s no pope, no bishops – there is, in fact, no outside authority at all that to which the congregation is obliged to give obedience. Our governance is congregational polity, or church democracy, and we should remember and appreciate that not all religious congregations enjoy the freedoms we have.

Of course, both the Unitarian Universalist Association and the South West District have influence over us. We are in covenant with them, and so certain duties and responsibilities are expected on each side because of that mutual covenant. We pay dues to them, and are expected to send delegates to their meetings to participate in their deliberations; in return, we expect resources and help from them in such areas as ministerial search, building loans, conflict management, religious education, and emergencies. But the UUA is an association of free and independent congregations, and sometimes there's a tension between UU societies and the larger denomination.

In much the same way, there is an inherent tension between the historic celebration of the primacy of the individual that has characterized our liberal religious movement and the need for connection in religious community. Over the decades, we have seen the pendulum swing from one side to another, from emphasizing individual freedom on one hand, to raising up the bonds of community on the other. Like balancing on the toy boogie boards of my childhood, there is no perfect middle place in which to stand; we have to keep jiggling and juggling between the two extremes.

A few years ago, I attended a conference on Medical Ethics. The presenter, Dr. John Banja, a professor of ethics at Emory in Atlanta, began his remarks by reminding us of the fictional character Robinson Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe had absolutely no need of ethics when he was first ship-wrecked and landed on the island. He could do anything he pleased. He was completely immune to the demands of living in community – because he was alone. You might say Robinson Crusoe's theme song could have been Simon & Garfunkel's "I Am a Rock."

But on the fateful morning that Crusoe spied the footprint of another person on the beach, his situation changed. He was no longer alone. His actions, decisions, and behavior would now impact the life of another human being. NOW he needed ethics; NOW he needed a code of behavior; NOW there was the potential – indeed, almost the certainty – of conflict with another person. Ethics, said Dr. Banja, are relational; you don't need them if other folks aren't around. And when other folks are in relation to you – whether in a church, a family, a neighborhood, or a workplace – you only have 3 choices: no relationship, community, or war.

When we choose to join a church community, we choose, in effect, to limit our personal freedom. Voluntarily and by mutual consent, we give up our immunity from obligations to others. Because of our covenantal relationship with the other individuals in the congregation, we choose to act with respect and compassion. We acknowledge the inherent worth and dignity of the others in our shared community by certain specific behaviors – for example, by refraining from insulting one another, by not needlessly causing another person pain, by acknowledging the reality and validity of experiences that are different, even radically different, from our own.

In covenantal community, we realize that one of the freedoms we give up is the freedom not to be bothered. Because we are in community together, there are some things we are just stuck with, such as contributing financially, and shared leadership. We agree in advance that we will all contribute funds to the church, and we will all rotate roles, that we will each take a turn at the helm. If you joined a food co-op, you would not expect everyone else in the co-op to do all the work and then deliver your groceries to you. You would be expected to do your part, or leave the co-op. In an intimate partnership, such as a marriage, if one partner just sat back and let the other partner slave away, doing all the work, that marriage or partnership would not last very long. In covenant, we each must do our part, even if that means sometimes stepping up in a way that at first makes us uncomfortable. If only those financially comfortable gave money, if only the people comfortable with being leaders accepted leadership positions, then most congregations would soon devolve into dictatorships by very small groups, however well-intentioned.

To participate in community, we must give up the idea of absolutes and move towards acceptance, tolerance, negotiation, and compromise. In community – just as in a marriage – no one person or group can expect to have everything exactly the way they want it. When we decide to be in relationship with others, we must learn to live with, and even love, the give and take that characterizes true community. Instead of striving to win over or beat out the others, we instead come to understand that we have to manage polarities and to "split the difference" or just live with the differences that can’t be split.

This is especially important in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. We are so different from one another – different in lifestyle, political opinion, social status, economic level, theology, philosophy, age, and sexual orientation – that the ideal of getting along beautifully all the time because we all agree on every single thing grows very dim indeed. And as Unitarian Universalism attracts more and more people of varying ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds, the diversity among us will grow even greater.

The cover story in this month’s UU World magazine emphasizes another hidden difference – that younger members don’t have the same expectations and experiences and “back story” that older members might have. Unless we want to be a denomination of just older folks, we’ll have to adjust and make changes in order to truly welcome younger generations.

Let’s go back to Robinson Crusoe and remember that Dr. Banja said that there are only 3 choices available to us when we are in close relationship with other human beings: community, war, or no relationship at all. Community or immunity? You decide. Me, I choose community – even though sometimes it’s a pain in the neck.

In a community, we become accountable, not just to ourselves, but to the others with whom we are covenanted. We hold the relationship in such high regard that we take the time to talk and to listen to one another; we strive to keep a caring, compassionate attitude towards each other. We watch what we say and how we say it and what we do, because we care if we hurt another person. We contribute financially, not because we're rich, but because such giving is part of being a church. We sometimes accept a leadership role or task assignment, not because we are dying to do it, but because it’s our turn, or because our community needs our particular skills at a particular time. In community, we can't have "I Am a Rock" as our theme song.

These are community ethics and community expectations. Yes, they DO limit absolute personal freedom, but then folks who want absolute freedom and who want to be left alone are well advised not to marry and not to join a church. But there’s a trade-off: the limits on personal freedom that stem from a commitment to a covenant also open even richer possibilities, like the possibility of deeper, more meaningful, more authentic relationships; the possibility of trust and harmony with diverse others; the possibility of developing skills and talents you may not have known that you had; the possibility of making a positive difference in the wider world – in short, the possibility of building the kind of society we say we want to live in. Community or immunity? You choose. What happens in this congregation and in our world is up to you.

Dr. Banja closed his address on ethics with these ringing words, “Is this feasible? It must be. It must be our foundation – our core values – the last bastion from which we will not retreat.” So might this be for this congregation! AMEN – ASHE – SHALOM – SALAAM – NAMASTE — BLESSED BE.