I.       Judy:  We opened our service this morning by repeating our Church Covenant:

“In the love of truth and in the spirit of Jesus Christ,
we join for the worship of God and the service of humankind.”

The covenant defines the parameters within which the worship, educational and service life of First Parish is carried on.  The Covenant also serves as the basis of the 8th grade Sunday School year.  As they prepare for their ceremony of Recognition and Commitment in the spring, our eighth graders explore each phrase of the Covenant to learn the history and faith of this church.  At their overnight retreat last weekend, they took a new look at the parables because the last phrase of our covenant stems directly from the second phrase – that is to say, the social action of this parish is rooted in the teachings of Jesus.  Nowhere is this exemplified more clearly than in the parable of the Good Samaritan which the eighth graders dramatized this morning.  As Christians, we are called to respond to people in need, whether we like them or not, whether they are from our own class or our own neighborhood, even if they are enemies, just as the Samaritan responded to the needs of the Jew beaten by robbers.  We teach our children that, if they are to walk in the spirit of Jesus Christ (as our Covenant says) then a primary value in their lives is the service of humankind.

II.      Harry:  “The spirit of Jesus Christ!”  Much that this phrase implies, as wide-ranging as it is, lay at the heart of both the Unitarian and the Universalist movements.  There was no doubt about it: when Unitarianism and Universalism broke in upon the American scene in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, their core-affirmations were decidedly Christian.  The Universalists in their 1803 Profession of Belief declared their allegiance to the “one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace . . .” The Unitarians, when forming the American Unitarian Association in 1825, announced their purpose to be: “to diffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure Christianity.”  While the Universalists argued for universal salvation – that is, the belief that all souls would ultimately be restored to harmony with God – and the Unitarians refuted Calvinist doctrines of predestination, human depravity, and the Trinity, both groups never once thought of themselves as carrying on their disputes outside the Christian context.  In a word, their controversies were” in-house”, within the Christian community all directed, to use William Ellery Channing’s words, toward illuminating a “more effective manifestation of Christian truth.”

Now a great deal has occurred since those initial days, and it is impossible this morning to examine thoroughly the various forces which have battered the Christian foundations of our Association.  The truth is: they have been and continue to be considerable.  Suffice it to say that until the turn of the century most Unitarian congregations viewed themselves as standing firmly within the Christian faith-community.  Example: at the organizing meeting of the National Conference of Unitarian Churches in 1865, the following preamble to the assembly’s Constitution was adopted:

         “Whereas the great opportunities and demands for Christian labor and consecration at this time increase our sense of the obligations of all disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ to prove their faith by self denial and by devotion of their lives and possessions to the service of God by the building up of the Kingdom of his Son . . .therefore, the Christian churches of the Unitarian faith here assembled unite themselves in a common body, to be known as the National Conference of Unitarian Churches . . .”

Because of the Unitarians’ tolerance for opposing views in their midst, this statement was gradually modified, until by 1894 it was, in the words of one minister, “bleached out” of most of its traditional Christian phraseology.  In an effort to accommodate a growing if still small minority of non-Christian theists and non-theistic humanists, the National Conference in that year at Saratoga revised its preamble to read:

         “These churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God and love to man.”

Non-Christian theists were pleased with this compromise because the clear christocentric emphasis of the previous statement had been significantly diluted.  Non-theistic humanists, though then insignificant in numbers, were satisfied because God-language was radically reduced to a single passing reference.  The result, of course, was an open door policy for membership in the Association for those who rejected all vestiges of Christianity, even the liberal Christianity that was the centerpiece of the Unitarian movement in the first place.  Tolerance for all views, regardless of how outlandish, replaced commitment to Christ and his way for humankind as the fundamental Unitarian credo.

The story of the Universalists is much the same.  Only the transition from an explicitly Christian stance to a more ambiguous faith-position took somewhat longer to achieve.  As late as 1935 the bond of fellowship of the Universalist Church of America stated its common purpose to be doing “the will of God as Jesus revealed it” and cooperating “in establishing the Kingdom for which he lived and died.”  But the Universalists included in this “Avowal of Faith,” as they did in some prior declarations, a liberty clause stating that nothing in this profession of common purpose should be considered binding.  As a consequence Universalists as well as Unitarians had their complement of non-Christian theists and non-theistic humanists, enough in fact that they could persuade the delegates gathered in Syracuse in 1960 to vote at the merger of the two denominations that it would be far more inclusive if they left out any reference to Jesus in their statement of purpose.  This was done for accommodation’s sake; and the two denominations, rooted historically in the excitement of Christian debate, merged, minus all acknowledgment of the Christ under whose banner they once gathered.  Only local congregations managed to maintain their allegiance to the Christian faith.

Even this, however, has proved a losing battle.  In 1967 close to half of all Unitarian Universalists in the country designated themselves Christian.  Today, twenty years later, according to the most recent denominational survey, that figure is less than twenty percent.  All one has to do is look about and tabulate the number of congregations which have moved out of the UU Christian orbit since the end of World War II.  The figure is staggering, probably in the hundreds.  One need not tick off the gory details or speculate on why this has occurred, although our tendency to be all things to all people and settle for a lowest common denominator religion is surely a major contributing factor.  The fact remains: this is what we have become as a denomination – a collection of congregations so diverse in theology and praxis that the Association cannot possibly serve them all.  Especially does this become a stark reality for Christian churches which now make up a relatively small minority of our religious societies.

III.     Judy:  One of the serious consequences of the present state of the UUA is that there are now almost no denominational programs and materials that are helpful to Unitarian Universalist Christian congregations.  A chief purpose of the UUA, according to its by-laws is “to serve the needs of its member congregations.”  Yet, as Harry and I pointed out in our report to you last month, we found at the General Assembly at Yale that, except for a few excellent programs presented by the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (which is an independent affiliate of the UU), there was little else we could bring home from GA that was useful to this congregation either theologically or spiritually.  There were no religious education workshops which dealt with biblical themes and materials for children; no adult education workshops on the latest developments in Bible study or Christian spirituality; no worship workshops to introduce congregations like ours to suitable worship and devotional materials; no religious music workshops for either junior or senior choir leaders exploring the rich treasury of church music and suggesting innovative ways to draw upon that storehouse for liturgical settings in a liberal church . . . .

Now pickings have been lean for UU Christians at General Assembly for at least the past ten years, but I think the reason that the 1989 GA has caused such dismay in liberal Christian circles is that UU Christians began to realize that what we experienced in New Haven is indicative of the future.  Unless something drastically changes, it is not going to get any better.  The reason there was no workshop on biblical devotions materials is that none are being produced the UUA.  Take for example the new hymnal due for publication within the next few years.  The new hymnal will carry responsive readings for use in the Sunday service.

Traditionally, the Psalms have served as the basis for responsive readings in Jewish and Christian congregations.  In the Unitarian hymnal published in 1913, all 150 Psalms were included.  When Hymns of the Spirit was published in 1937 – that’s the red hymnal in your pews – over 50 Psalms were included.  Granted, they had been re-worked, in some cases two or three were kaleidescoped together and often additional words were composed and added to them; but still between 50 and 60 Psalms can be found in Hymns of the Spirit.

In 1964, the UUA produced a new hymnal entitled Hymns for the Celebration of Life.  Those of you who were in the congregation then remember that we sang with the new blue books for two Sundays and decided against purchasing them, mainly because the songs were even more unsingable and unfamiliar than our present hymns.  But that 1964 hymnal carried 23 Psalms.

The preliminary draft of the new proposed hymnal has none.  Furthermore, not only are there no Psalms, there are also no sayings from Jesus – no Beatitudes, no Sermon on the Mount.  In fact, only three biblical passages are included in the readings.

The scene in religious education is no less bleak.  Back in 1980, I served on the denominational RE Futures Committee.  Our task was to lay out a blueprint for religious education in the UUA for the next decade.  In our final report, presented at the General Assembly in 1981, we recommended the production of a curriculum to serve three separate constituencies: humanist congregations, theists, and UU Christians.

Thus far, there have been no materials for the Christians.  The new curriculum, “Cakes for the Queen of Heaven,” which extols goddess worship, is so biased in its use of biblical sources as to be anti-Christian,

The UUA is about to field-test a course on the New Testament for Senior Highers.  It proposes to cover the New Testament – the whole New Testament – in eight class periods and has been written by a non-Christian.  A colleague – a UU Christian minister who also teaches Bible in a private secondary school, so she knows whereof she speaks, told me that she wrote a 30-page critique of the curriculum at the request of the UUA and urged strongly against its publication because of the many inaccuracies and absurdities in it.  The last curriculum published the UUA which contained Bible stories was “The Adventures of God’s Folk” in 1978 (taught in the second grade here and written by Joseph Bassett of the Chestnut Hill Church and our own Joan Hunt).

First Parish has made a major contribution to UU Sunday schools by producing biblically based curricular materials which the Association has neither the desire nor the will to produce.  The Weston curriculum is being used by churches throughout the United States and Canada.  In this regard, we have fed others.  But the question looms increasingly larger for us: where do we as a congregation look for the resources and inspiration we need to feed our own religious life?

IV.     Harry:  Where do we look for the resources we need to feed our own religious life?  If the experience of the recent General Assembly at Yale taught us anything it is that we will not receive those resources – that is, the help we require to enhance our liturgical, devotional and educational life as a congregation – from the UUA.  But if this is so, then the logical question that issues from this fact is: why not bolt?  Why stay within an association which appears to have neither the inclination nor the capability of serving adequately the Christian churches in its midst?  Moreover, why remain in a denomination that seems to have so little respect for a major strand of its own religious heritage? Certainly this is the question some of you have raised with Judy and me over the past weeks.

Some years ago, as we were struggling with the wording of the denomination’s new “Purposes and Principles,” a similar query was put.  At that time I gave three reasons why as a congregation we should try to remain within the Association.  The first was theological.  While we are a Christian church, we are also a Unitarian Universalist Christian church.  That means, that while we believe that Jesus fully reveals that dimension of God which is available for our salvation – for our wholeness as human beings and as children of God – we do not believe that Jesus was God.  In other words, we don’t believe that all of God was poured out in Jesus Christ.  In this regard, we are different from many orthodox believers, although I dare say more and more seem to be siding with us or some version of our viewpoint than was surely the case a century ago.  That’s the theological rationale.

The second reason was essentially historical.  The Unitarian Universalist roots of this particular theological conviction were expressed in quite different ways by figures outside the mainstream of Christian thought, figures like Faustus Socinus, Joseph Priestley, Hosea Ballou, William Ellery Channing, James Martineau and a whole host of others.  Institutional maintenance of this important tradition within the large Christian framework – that, in brief, was the historical rationale.

The final reason was ecclesiological.  Most of us, I suspect, deeply cherish the fact that a Unitarian Universalist church ideally is a community in which we can freely work out our beliefs about God, Jesus, and the world without fear of being charged with heresy.  Even in churches which have covenants signifying a congregation’s consensus, creedalism is rejected.  There is no excommunication for failing to pledge allegiance to the party line.  This was the ecclesiological rationale.

No doubt there are other rationales.  For some of you the reasons may be quite personal.  Perhaps a Unitarian Universalist church provided you with a theological and spiritual home when you were hard to work forging the salient elements of your faith.  Perhaps the reason is familial.  Your relationship with the denomination and one of its antecedents may be long standing and fraught with powerful memories.  Maybe you are a descendent of a family who worshipped in this parish or some other congregation when it became a Unitarian or a Universalist church.  Whatever the reason, neither you nor I wish to renounce our connection with the denomination and the tradition which has so influenced our life.  Few of us, after all, are schismatics at heart.

Yet the dilemma persists, doesn’t it?  What can we do as individuals and as a congregation when we are so out of sync with the way our denomination is heading and when the possibility for any significant change in its anti-Christian temperament seems so remote?

V.      Judy:  To answer that question, Harry and I have here proposals we would like to put forward for your consideration at the Forum after church this morning.  The first is that we strengthen our participation as a parish in the Council of Christian Churches within the UUA and in the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship.  The first group is a council of about 30 churches which first began meeting five years ago in order to provide services for one another when we realized the UUA was no longer serving our churches.  The eighth Convocation of the Council will take place here at First Parish on Saturday, October 14, and all of you are invited to take part in the program, where many of the questions we are considering this morning will again be addressed.  The second organization, the UU Christian Fellowship, was formed in the 1940s primarily to serve individual Christians who were members of non-Christian churches.  The UUCF publishes one of the most respected journals in the religious world today as well as publishing newsletters and pamphlets for UU Christian consumption.  It also maintains a network of chapters in many of the major U.S. cities. Currently on its Board of Directors are two former First Parish interns, Ken Clarke and Jenny Rankin, and two parishioners, Barbara Coburn and Joan Hunt.  Both of these organizations – the Council of Christian Churches within the UUA and the UUCF – maintain a strong, up-to-date Christian witness within the UUA and it is our proposal to you that we not only increase our personal participation in them but that we also divert some of the $8,000 we annually contribute to UUA headquarters to the work of these two organizations.  We need to become a stronger political force for our position within the UUA.

But this is not sufficient.  Most of the UU Christian churches are small: we are one of the two or three largest.  People resources for producing worship and educational material are simply not there.  Harry’s and my second proposal is that we begin doing what other UU Christian congregations are also doing; that is, we propose that we begin making linkages with a mainline Protestant denomination that can supply us with services.  Already we are using educational and worship materials from the UCC – that is, the United Church of Christ (which is the official name for the Congregationalists).  Our proposal specifically this morning is that we divert some more of the UUA money in our budget to the UCC so as to allow us to send our members to conferences for teachers, youth workers, choir directors – and to allow us to draw on their ministers when needed.  As more and more of our younger UU Christian clergy leave the UUA for the UCC and other liberal Protestant denominations, UU Christian churches need to be concerned about where their future ministerial leadership is coming from.

Our third proposal is that we reactivate what has traditionally been a strong ecumenical involvement by our parish.  Ecumenical services, both during the summer and during the church year, seem to have become “ho-hum” affairs in Weston.  There is lower participation in the ecumenical choir; lower attendance at ecumenical programs.  We Unitarians are not the only ones suffering from this drop in enthusiasm; it is nationwide as well as local. But for us who are UU Christians, it is important to maintain a vital relationship with the larger Church, not only because we have much to contribute but also because we have much to gain.  Your clergy have been involved in Council of Churches work on the local, state, national and international levels.  Lay people, too, are needed for ecumenical endeavors and will be especially welcomed at the state level.

In short, Harry and I are proposing that First Parish become a church which speaks out more strongly for our liberal Christian faith within our denomination of origin while at the same time developing linkages with a liberal Protestant denomination that can supply us with the services which the UUA no longer provides.

We look forward to your comments at the Forum!