“We Pledge to Walk Together”
the Rev. Bruce Russell-Jayne, December 2,2007

Reading

Fulfilling the Promise - Clark Olsen

The reading today is an excerpt from an address at the 1998 General Assembly by Clark Olsen called Fulfilling the Promise: A Response to the Survey Results. It has been slightly adapted for clarity.
“I speak today as one member of the Fulfilling the Promise Committee…[In 1996] the UUA Board of Trustees appointed a Strategic Planning Team which was renamed the Fulfilling the Promise Committee… Our statement of purpose…is: "to call the UUA member congregations into a participatory process of ongoing renewal so that:
• needs and aspirations will be made explicit,
• a covenant of shared goals, resource commitments, and supportive structures will be realized, and
• Unitarian Universalism will fulfill its promise in the world." …

Sermon The Historic Challenge – Bruce Russell-Jayne
The challenge is to better understand, for our time and the future, what we shall do together, in our congregations and in our association of congregations. That may seem abstract, but beneath the words lies a deep sense that we have not yet understood our potential, not yet put our purposes and principles adequately to work, not yet discovered the full promise of our faith and of our association.

Let me set the stage by spotlighting our past emphasis on individualism. Without providing a broad analysis, allow me please to simplify by referring to one part of our Unitarian heritage. In the American Unitarian Association forty years ago the Laymen's League conducted an advertising campaign: "Are you a Unitarian without knowing it?" …An unspoken assumption underlay that campaign -- that the associational dimension, the covenant with others, played a minor role in our liberal faith…

In the 1920's Earl Morse Wilbur wrote his famous one volume description of our Unitarian history. Tracing our roots in Transylvania, Poland, Holland and England and our emergence in North America, he summarized Unitarianism as the "progressive development of freedom, tolerance and reason in religion." … Wilbur's summary spotlighted liberalism's challenge to prevailing orthodoxy. But with hindsight we can say that behind Wilbur's celebration of progress lurked a future problem of deep significance.

Those code words "freedom, tolerance and reason" bespoke a heavy emphasis on the autonomous individual and her or his religious stance. In 1985, Robert Bellah's book Habits of the Heart carried the message that individualism in American life had gone too far. We had underestimated the importance of community.

Now we begin to understand that, putting it simply and perhaps too boldly, one cannot be a Unitarian Universalist by oneself. There is no such thing as a "closet UU." Integral to our faith there now emerges an understanding something like: "To know what I believe and to practice my faith -- more accurately, to be a Unitarian Universalist -- I must be in covenant with others."

It is that understanding, that "something is missing" in our emphasis on individualism, that we now seek to address.

[In 1984] our association went through a thoroughly congregational and associational process of defining our "Purposes and Principles," which described the sources, evidence and reason for our association. In effect they described who we are. …

Our current process proposes to move further, asking additional significant questions that were not covered by Purposes and Principles.

Here are some critical questions of Fulfilling the Promise:
As individual Unitarian Universalists - How does our faith inform our daily lives, hold us together in times of crisis, enable us to celebrate life, and empower us to act justly in the world?
As Unitarian Universalist congregations - What hopes do we share, how shall we treat one another, what are we willing to promise each other?
As the Unitarian Universalist Association - our bylaws say we are member congregations in covenant with each other. How do we define that covenant? What does it mean to be "We, the member congregations"? Given who we are, what shall we do together?

About that last question -- both as individual congregations and as an association of congregations, "What shall we do together?" -- if we answer only in terms of committees, structures and programs, we shall have failed to accept the depth of the challenge. If we answer in terms of fundamental understanding of our covenant, we shall find we have said something deeply important to ourselves and the world.

Sermon We Pledge to Walk Together (II) Rev. Bruce Russell-Jayne
Having just eaten Thanksgiving Turkey and pumpkin pie, and turkey tetrazinni, and a few turkey sandwiches, I can’t resist telling you how we Unitarian Universalists are related to the Pilgrims. Northern Hills Fellowship has a unique place in the milieu of churches on the West side of Cincinnati – we are direct descendants of those who first celebrated Thanksgiving in America. This morning I’ll relate to you one of the most important stories from our past; one that gives shape to the narrative of who we are. This is a story of “Our whence and our whither.”

The Pilgrims, wanting freedom to practice religion their own way, fled England and lived in Holland. After twelve years about 100 of them sailed to America, where they established a community at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 . Their church, First Parish Plymouth, is the oldest congregation in the Unitarian Universalist Association. Now there’s a little known fact to add to your list of UU bragging rights. When they settled in New England the Puritans established what they called Congregational churches. In the early 19th century, in reaction to the Calvinist doctrines of the time, many Congregational churches became Unitarian. Most of the Congregational Churches who didn’t join the Unitarians back then are now part of the United Church of Christ.

Being heir to the Pilgrims and Puritans is not the first thing most folks mention when they talk about Unitarian Universalists. Have you ever wondered what people in Finneytown or Wyoming say about us? Just what is this church’s identity in our community? This week, I was reading the excellent report from your 2004 Long Range Planning Committee. One step in their process of gathering information and opinions about NHF at that time was interviewing community leaders including ministers of other area churches. Several of the interviewees had little knowledge of NHF, and that struck me as an important statement about our identity. Likewise, the report had many wonderful suggestions for improving programs and growing the church, but there did not seem to be an overarching direction based upon the congregation’s sense of itself. Now, I don’t mean to criticize the report; I honor the people who worked so hard on it. However, reading it leads me to conclude this church’s identity is not totally clear to all of us. Just as it is important to have a clear sense of identity as an individual person, it is important to have a clear sense of who we are as a church community. As an autonomous congregation, it is up to us to create our identity.

NHF is not the only UU congregation who is a little unclear about their identity as a church. In fact, many UU churches are reluctant to establish the structure that would support the strong communities for which they yearn. Historically Unitarians and Universalists have struggled with the “inherent tension between the concepts of community and autonomy. The tension between community and autonomy is likely related to the tension between responsibility and freedom.” In our reading today Clark Olsen told the 1998 General Assembly that the UUA Commission on Appraisal was looking for ways to preserve congregational autonomy and at the same time strengthen ties in our Association. The creation of this tension in our movement goes back to the Pilgrims. A look at UU history gives some insight into how the Pilgrims tried to deal with it.
:::
In early 17th century England, a fine young preacher named John Robinson became troubled by certain doctrines and practices sent down by the bishops and magistracy who ruled his St. Andrews parish in Norwich of Norfolk. All citizens were obliged by law to belong to the Church of England, but Robinson became convinced the church could not be true if it did things based on outside authority. Turned off by his experience of inflexible church governance, Robinson had a new idea for organizing a church. The Reverend Alice Blair Wesley describes his conception of church, “The church was to be constituted, not by obedience to hierarchical authority (bishop or King), not by assent to a set of propositional statements (a creed), and not by confession of a transforming experience (salvation). The church was to be constituted by a promise, a covenant to venture together as individuals in the ways of the Spirit, with entire integrity.”

In 1607 a new congregation formed in the little town of Scrooby, England. “One writer described the event this way: “There was first one stood up and made a covenant, [then another] and these two joined together, and so a third, and these became a church, say they, etc.” Seventeen year old William Bradford, who later was governor of Plymouth Colony, attended the church-forming ceremony. He paraphrased their covenant: “The Lord’s free people joined themselves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship of the gospel, to walk in His ways made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavors, whatsoever it should cost them.” Thus did the Puritans, our spiritual ancestors, establish the Free Church.

Rebecca Parker, president of Starr King School for the Ministry, characterizes “the Free Church tradition that emerged in the 17th century as part of a reforming movement that resisted the corrupt hierarchical power of the church and the economic alliance between the feudal aristocracy and the church. The making of church covenants asserted the power of people to determine their own lives and to choose who would govern them. It was a grassroots empowerment movement that became a decisive factor in the rise of modern democracy and the emergence of a post-feudal economic system.”

And the free church movement, of which Unitarian Universalism is a leading proponent, has provided spiritual freedom for its members ever since that time. It is important to remember that individual freedom of belief is protected and nourished by free churches. A free church “brings individuals into a caring, trusting fellowship that protects and nourishes integrity and spiritual freedom.” “The dedicated [free church] community itself is the liberating reality.”
:::
American Unitarianism came out of the Puritan churches in Massachusetts, which organized themselves around the Cambridge Platform of 1648. The Cambridge Platform holds that “there is no greater Church than a Congregation,” which consists of visible saints in voluntary agreement and covenant with each other to “worship, edify and have fellowship.” (All the members of a church used to be called Saints – I like to think of you that way.) Each church is autonomous, because there is no higher authority than the congregation. It grants members the right to determine their own leaders. The Platform said the local congregation resembles a democracy, but it also owed allegiance to higher values and to other churches in the area. We often cite the Cambridge Platform even today as the basis for our Congregational style of church governance, also known as Congregational Polity. A church’s polity is its political organization.

The Commission on Appraisal’s 1997 report, Interdependence: Renewing Congregational Polity, says, “Congregational polity then and now sees no power that extends beyond the congregation. Then and now, a congregation has the right and responsibility to choose and ordain its own clergy, elect its own officers, direct them in the course of their duties, and replace them when necessary. We will perform some of these important duties at our annual meeting next Sunday after worship. Then and now there are no synods, bishops, or other persons empowered elsewhere with authority over a congregation.”

The basis of our Congregational Polity is an autonomous, covenanted congregation. Unitarian Universalists hold a deeply rooted sense that the local congregation is the center and spring of our vitality as a religious movement. The most obvious expression of congregational polity is in the independent governance of each congregation. “Forms of organization and governance go to the heart of our identity as Unitarian Universalists. They express and influence the tasks we take seriously, support, and celebrate. Our polity is the institutional means through which we express our Principles and Purposes. Understanding congregational polity is vital if we are to realize the vision espoused by the Principles and Purposes.”

Each congregation sets how the governing board, minister, staff, and membership work together to further the goals of the church. Understanding congregational polity as based on mutual accountability strengthens relationships and is critical to the performance of the church’s mission. Even in church governance, UUs tend to emphasize the independence of each person more than interdependence as members of a congregation. UUs seem to have lost the sense of bonding which the Pilgrims saw as critical to holding church community together.

Congregational Polity empowers this congregation, - no, it’s more than that; it requires us to define what we are about and how we relate to each other, our community and to the larger UU movement. “The most important but often overlooked element of polity is the responsibility of congregations to be in right relationship within themselves…” We need to recapture the Pilgrims’ spirit of covenant. In fact, an intentional covenant between its members is what constitutes a free church. Without a covenant, a free church can’t exist.
:::
For many years now UU congregations have been trying to reclaim a covenantal understanding of themselves. Many UUs are skeptical of using a religious word like Covenant. However, the UU definition of covenant is such that even those of us who are a bit squeamish about religious language can feel comfortable with the idea.
Simply put, a covenant is a promise. It is a specific kind of promise, a promise to come together, to convene. A covenant begins with a commitment to come together in peace. Covenants are often written, but covenant must be more than verbal agreement; it must be practiced. The Cambridge Platform defined principles of covenantal church life, “real agreement and consent they do express by their constant practice in coming together …not only by word of mouth, but by sacrifice…and also sometimes by silent consent, without any writing or expression of words at all.” What covenanting is really about is helping people live together in loving relationship.

Covenant is begun by a commitment to peace and is sustained by spiritual practice. Puritan Richard Mather wrote similarly in 1644, “Covenant may be implied by frequent acts of communion performed together…the falling in of their spirits in communion in things spiritual.” What a lovely idea: “the falling of their spirits into communion.” Wouldn’t you love that as metaphor for the fellowship of Northern Hills – a place where our spirits fall into communion with each other?
:::
In 1550, Puritan Robert Browne, proposed “a revolution in church life. Churches should come into being, he said, as a covenant among persons…by a mutual agreement to walk together. Browne hoped there would be a church in which people would mutually agree ‘that any might protest, appeal, complain, exhort, dispute, reprove…watch for disorders, reform abuses, and debate matters.” He was talking about a community in which people practiced authentic individuality, not one in which differences were minimized.

This conception of a free church requires members to vigorously engage each other to learn from each other. It requires people to enter into a covenant of persuasion. Each individual seeks her or his own truth, but truth must be tested. Each of us lives by the truths we believe, but there are times when we have doubts or can’t decide what to believe. In the Free Church people come together in a promise that we will together seek the truth and support each other to live the truths we dare. “Each member is called to give utterance, to ask, to explain, to defend what is the truth she or he sees. To be unforthcoming is to be disloyal, for how can we learn from one another without candor?”

The only way people can be that open and trusting with each other and still maintain a caring community is if they are committed to staying in loving relationship. Covenant is at the heart of the whole thing. The power that holds the individuals of a free church together is a promise to tell the truth in love, a covenant which each member freely makes. The distinguishing quality of a free church is members “exist in a partnership of unforced mutuality with others.” The covenant of a free church is to use the spirit of persuasion in love. The spirit of persuasion may urge us to act, but it should never force us to do anything. In the spirit of persuasion we may respectfully exhort others, but we can never try to coerce, shame or slam another. As free religious people we speak honestly and listen with an open mind to one another. We are also called to follow what we might be persuaded are better ways. This spirit of persuasion is at the center of the covenant of the Free Church.

One of the deepest convictions that excite Unitarian Universalists is the possibility of creating a beloved community among people. Unitarian Universalism seeks to embody this spiritual vision and to advance its fuller realization. We hope to see the most diverse representatives of humanity united as members of our congregations. Such communities must be deliberately formed and reformed, nurtured and renewed. An intentional covenant to come together in peace is needed to hold such a church together. We need a covenant which centers the congregation on a promise to search for and live by truth, and to do it together by maintaining respectful and loving relationships. If this center holds, there are no limits to what the congregation, the face-to-face community of people who seek to walk together faithfully, courageously, and joyfully, can do together.

I conclude with a covenant adapted from the Pilgrims for contemporary Unitarian Universalists by Alice Blair Wesley:
“We Pledge to walk together
in the ways of truth and affection,
as best we know them now
or may learn them in days to come
that we and our children may be fulfilled
and that we may speak to the world
in words and actions
of peace and goodwill.”

Wesley, Alice Blair. Workshop at MDD UUMA Retreat (Grand Junction: 10/10/05).
Interdependence: Renewing Congregational Polity, A Report by the Commission on Appraisal, (Unitarian Universalist Association: June 1997) Section Six.
Wesley, Alice Blair. “In the Beginning,” in Redeeming Time: Endowing Your Church With the Power of Covenant, Walter P. Herz, ed. Skinner House Books (Boston: 1999) 2.
Parker, Rebecca. “What They Dreamed Be Ours to Do, in Redeeming Time: Endowing Your Church With the Power of Covenant, 89.
Beach, George Kimmich. “The Covenant of Spiritual Freedom,” in Redeeming Time: Endowing Your Church With the Power of Covenant, 104.
Interdependence: Renewing Congregational Polity, Section Two.
Interdependence: Renewing Congregational Polity, Introduction.
Interdependence: Renewing Congregational Polity, Introduction.
Parker, 87.
Parker, 85-86.
Ibid. 5.
Wesley, “In the Beginning,” 4., 11