50 YEARS OF UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM

A Sermon for Association Sunday
by the Rev. Melanie Morel-Ensminger
First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans
Sunday, October 2, 2010

One of the most difficult things about being a Unitarian Universalist is the name – few other religions have a 10-syllable moniker to contend with. Whenever one of us is asked what church we go to or what religion are we, we have to trot out the whole dang thing. And you can’t get away with just saying “UU,” since you then have to explain what that stands for – or what it used to stand for, and then what it stands for today. Why are we “Unitarian Universalists” anyway?

Fifty years ago, representatives from the American Unitarian Association, founded in 1825, and the Universalist Church of America, founded in 1790, met to sign official papers of merger, creating the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Although it may seem in retrospect to have been inevitable, since both denominations were liberal in theology and social issues, and both were dedicated to the principle of congregational autonomy, and the two had cooperated with each on various things for close to a century, it certainly did not seem to be a sure thing at the time. While it’s true that the Unitarians and Universalists had a lot in common, there were still enough significant differences to spark disagreement and controversy on both sides. As UU historian Russell Miller has written, there were indeed “deep differences of theology, class configuration, philosophy, behavior, and attitudes which cannot be easily overlooked or minimized.”

Conversations on merger had begun more than 100 years before, and had continued, off and on, through the decades. For several generations, they had been forming joint ventures, doing projects together, and recognizing each other’s ordained clergy. For years, all over the continent, Universalist ministers served Unitarian congregations, and vice versa, and strong Unitarian churches helped out struggling Universalist churches, and vice versa – as in Chattanooga during the 1890s, when the Universalist congregation met in the Unitarian building until they could afford to build their own. (There was a vote to see if the Universalist member were willing to merge with the Unitarian congregation where they had been meeting, but typically it was voted down.)

One of the most important differences that arose in the conversations on merger was numbers – numbers of people and amounts of money. In the mid-20th century, roughly the years 1948-1958, there was a tremendous burst of growth in Unitarianism, first, with the influx of post-war young parents of the children soon to be known as the Baby Boom.

The second reason for Unitarianism’s expansion during this period was the inauguration of the Fellowship Movement, under the guidance of Humanist minister Lon Ray Call and layman Monroe Husbands. With their leadership, all over the continent, groups large enough to be a Unitarian congregation but not yet large enough to be a church with a full-time minister were organized into lay-led fellowships that were grassroots, intensely local, and often very innovative in worship style. That they later developed characteristics of anti-authoritarianism, anti-clericalism, hyper-individualism, and theological conformity was not intended but should not have come as a complete surprise. At this period, fully one-third of all Unitarians were members of lay-led fellowships. But, interestingly, financial giving to the denomination did not rise as fast as the membership figures, and the AUA was often strapped for cash.

During the same period, the Universalists were declining in numbers while perversely growing stronger financially. Ironically, it can be said that Universalism lost by winning. The theological message of Universalism, that God is Love and will not condemn human beings to burn in hell forever, had caused its dramatic increase in membership in the early to mid-1800s. This was, as you might expect, a very comforting and attractive message and people flocked to Universalist churches to hear it. But as the 19th century drew to a close, other mainline denominations got the point and began to downplay or even discard doctrines of eternal punishment and rhetoric about the fires of hell. With the Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and others dropping talk of eternal damnation, there was less and less need to join a Universalist church. (Even today, in order to regularly hear sermons that rant on hell, you’d have to attend the most theologically conservative churches.) Universalism as a theology won the day – but ironically Universalism as a denomination lost.

As their membership aged and dwindled and their congregations closed, bequests from deceased Universalists and the reversion of church property meant that Universalism was a denomination with a healthy endowment and an unhealthy membership roll. Thus, as Unitarianism and Universalism approached merger, there was a great deal of concern among Universalists that it might only be a “marriage for money” as many put it. And all the individualism, iconoclasm, and mistrust of authority that so strongly characterized not only Unitarian fellowships but also many congregations, led to a comparable mistrust on their part that the Universalists might be too old-fashioned, too bound with the past, and too centralized for consolidation to work. (I once preached a sermon about changes in our religious movement, beginning with merger, that was entitled “What Were They Thinking??”)

The class issue was complex and sensitive, just as class remains today for the merged denomination. Unitarianism in America grew out of the Standing Order churches of New England, officially sanctioned by the government and supported by tax dollars. Thus, Unitarians tended to be Establishment types, members of the ruling and professional classes, with access to economic power and resulting better education. Universalists, on the other hand, historically opposed and fought vigorously against the stranglehold of the official churches, and were, with the Baptists, instrumental in the “disestablishment” cause. Their members tended to be rural, working class folk, often farmers, with less formal education than Unitarians. (While the Universalists were not well-educated in schools, they tended to be self-taught and great book readers.) Interestingly, the individually richer Unitarians, due perhaps to their distrust of centralization as well as their philosophy of individualism and autonomy, gave far less, per capita, to their denomination and congregations than did the less well-off Universalists.

Another complication was the difference in organizational style. For many years, Universalists felt themselves to be under siege. Civic leaders in some places, as in Ellisville, Mississippi, put up signs that said “No dogs or Universalists allowed” as late as the 1900s. (Even earlier, George Washington himself had had to intervene during the Revolutionary War to allow a Universalist minister to serve as an army chaplain.) With their sense of persecution, it made sense for Universalists to have a powerful central organization and a constant feeling of having to battle for their right to exist. Conversely, Unitarians, with their establishment credentials and love of freedom, failed to give the AUA any organizational “teeth” until the end of the 1890s and the start of the 20th century. How a new merged denomination would be organized was thus a major question not easily resolved.

Finally, there were concerns on both sides about theology. Unitarianism had officially stepped away from its historical and traditional theism and liberal Christianity, starting in the time of William Ellery Channing in the mid-1800s (when in a controversial sermon he laid out the principles of “Unitarian Christianity”), continuing with the so-called Issue in the West in the late 1800s (when Unitarians took the word “God” out of their mission statement and substituted “the Good”), and culminating in the Humanist Controversy in the early 20th century.

This did not mean, of course, that individual Unitarians and congregations did not remain theistic and/or Christian – the freedom of conscience and congregational autonomy so important to both denominations ensured that there were many, although they were beginning to be outnumbered. Even today, there are congregations whose worship style is firmly, if liberally, Christian in content and style.

Although there were some Universalist ministers and lay people who were (if you’ll excuse the expression) devout humanists – notably, Humanist poet and hymn writer Kenneth Patton – and while there were strong affirmations within Universalism of a universal religious sense and the universality of religious experience (first articulated at the Universalist Convention of 1870), Universalism was still firmly holding the Bible and Jesus as central – although their liberal conclusions on both did not endear them to other Christians. (The Universalist Bond of Fellowship, adopted in 1953, read, “to do the will of God as Jesus revealed it and to cooperate in establishing the Kingdom for which he lived and died” – not exactly an orthodox formulation!)

In 1953, administrative functions of the two denominations in the areas of religious education, publications, and public relations were combined and the Council of Liberal Churches was formed. Many UUs who were youth during this period are very proud that the continental youth organizations merged before the adult denominations did. During merger talks in the 1930s, one name proposed for the proposed consolidated denomination was “The United Liberal Church of America;” another was the “Free Church Fellowship.” Former president of the AUA Frederick May Eliot called the formation of the council was “one of the most important events in the history of American Unitarianism.”

This was followed in 1954 by a joint commission on merger and by a joint biennial conference of Unitarians and Universalists in 1959. After that meeting, both denominations held plebiscites to make the final determination, which overwhelmingly affirmed the decision to merge. On May 25, 1961, merger was accomplished and the new combined denomination was called the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. (What happened to “The United Liberal Church in America” or the “Free Church Fellowship”? you may well ask. The sad truth is, neither was willing to relinquish its historic name. Similarly, there remain today churches which so far have refused or neglected to incorporate the “other” name into their identity.)

The most hotly contested issues for most of the people voting in 1961 remain sticking points today for many UUs: To what extent is Unitarian Universalism part of the great “family tree” of Christianity? To what extent is Unitarian Universalism beyond Christianity, standing as a new universal religion? And is Unitarian Universalism a religion, or a way of being religious? (Sorry, those are not questions this sermon will answer – you’ll have to decide for yourself!)

One of the biggest lessons we learn (or are reminded of) from the merger 50 years ago is that there are no easy answers. Today Unitarian Universalism faces challenges in balancing the equal and seemingly opposing needs for independence and interdependence, pluralism and consensus, spirituality and social action. We still cannot expect to completely agree among ourselves on how much social action is not enough or too much, whether in our congregations or at the UUA level. Finances remain a challenge at the UUA level as well as for many if not most UU congregations. And you can still generate an argument among certain UUs over whether or not the ministerial credentialing process and settlement system violates our historic congregational polity. But if it wasn’t that, it’d be something else, because we’re a contentious bunch.

Despite our conflicts, here we are, 50 years later. There has been a deepening in recent years of spirituality and taking worship seriously in UU congregations. The children of the Baby Boom generation are now entering our churches, either as former UU Sunday School kids returning with their own families, or as unchurched seekers looking for freedom of conscience, spiritual relevancy, and work for justice and community in the wider world. After 50 years of Unitarian Universalism, we can say that we are more resilient than ever, with a saving message for all those who desire what we have to offer. We may not be the universal World Religion once envisioned at merger, but our saving message is as relevant as ever in the 21st century. May we always draw strength and inspiration from both sides of our religious heritage as we carry liberal religion forward to the next 50 years! AMEN -- ASHE -- SHALOM -- NAMASTE -- BLESSED BE!