A look back at the way one of our esteemed historians saw the relationship between the UUA and Protestantism at the time soon after the joining of the Unitarians and Universalists; from the Unitarian Christian journal, 50 years ago, Oct. 1964. much has changed since, much has remained the same, I believe...what Conrad Wright talks about here in terms of how to be a connector and a conduit and an influence in the community of churches is one of the plusses for our movement of having a web of small UUCF groups throughout the country whether connected with a particular UU church, or more broadly from several in an area, or as independent groups. Unitarians and the Community of Churches by Dr. C. Conrad Wright In that same issue 50 years ago this fall was this essay by the acclaimed church historian Conrad Wright who would soon go on to publish The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America and many other books of church history in our tradition. “One of the questions that Unitarians and Universalists argue about most persistently is the relationship of their movement to the Christian tradition. This was a matter for debate four a half years ago in Syracuse, when plans for merger of the Universalist and Unitarian denominations were perfected; but it had equally been a point of discussion in Syracuse in 1866, when the National Conference of Unitarian Churches was being formed. So for at least four generations, this same question has been agitated among us. I suspect that the way in which the question is usually put confuses the issue; and that the pattern of our past gives us a clearer answer than all the sermons that have been preached on the subject: “Are Unitarians Christian?” When the question is phrased that way, the assumption is that it must be answered Yes or No. But in actual fact, the record shows—does it not?—that some are and some aren’t…For many Christians it remains something of a scandal that a religious group like ours should take up a position half inside and half outside the Christian fold. But we have occupied this position, now, for a long time, and we find that it has an inner logic of its own. We accept this position because history allow us no option; but we accept it willingly because we see in it an opportunity for a creative minority to make a unique contribution towards resolving the deeply-rooted tensions of a divided culture. The marginal position of our churches presents us wiuth certain practical problems, however, and it is to them that I propose to devote some time. If we are to maintain our distinctive position, so that we can make a contribution that no other group can so plausibly make to the life of our times, how are we to conduct ourselves? How should we relate ourselves to other religious organizations? To what extent can we cooperate with local councils of churches, or the National or World Councils? What should be the relationships of our churches and fellowships to the other Christian churches? These are the problems that arise from the situation in which we find ourselves, and it is these practical problems, rather than broad generalizations about the sweep of western culture, that are our real concern. Our Relationships Have Changed: …We have changed, and the other churches have changed, and the social context of our relationship has changed. If we are to be effective in this altered situation, we must see clearly what these changes have been. A new situation calls for a new response and a new strategy. If we look back to the year 1900 we find 454 churches listed in the Unitarian Year Book, 265 of them in New England…Unitarianism was still predominantly a regional, New England movement. In 1900, Unitarians were still actutely conscious of the fact that their denomination had developed from a schism in the congregational churches of the Standing Order in Massachusetts. The Unitarian Congregationalists might be estranged from their cousins, the Trinitarian Congregationalists; but a deep sense of kinship persisted…There were not many Unitarian churches outside New England throughout most of the 19th century, and they were not old, established and “respectable” as they were here. A fair proportion of them moved somewhat farther to the left, theologically speaking, than the typical New England Unitarian church…on the Unitarian side, it was the situation in New England that tended to define the relationship with the rest of Protestantism. That relationship was one of close kinship with one of the strong and avowedly Christian denominations. Much has happened in the past 60 years; much, indeed, has happened in the past twenty years…The first thing that has happened is that, even apart from the recent Universalist-Unitarian merger, Unitarianism has grown, and is growing numerically in a most extraordinary way. But this process of growth has shifted the center of gravity west of the Hudson…Inevitably, there are fewer Unitarians today than before who feel a close sense of fraternal kinship with Congregationalists or members of any other traditional Protestant group. Many of our new fellowships have attracted come-outers from more conservative Christian denominations, and men and women who have had no connection with any church at all. These new Unitarians and Universalists are not inclined—at least at the outset—to emphasize the Christian half of our tradition. The second thing that has happened has been that, just as we have moved away from our Congregational cousins, so too have they moved away from us. [Wright discusses not only the 1957 merger creating the UCC but also the talks that were then underway through Consultation of Christian Union about possible mergers with many other mainline Protestant bodies]…We still have a good deal in common with them; but it is far less true than it used to be that the family connection is important in our relationships. …We Are More Sectarian One consequence is that we tend to be more narrowly sectarian today then we used to be, and much less prepared, or even willing, to understand theological views that differ from our own…Our isolation from the main body of the Christian churches, which is at least in part a self-chosen isolation, is an obvious fact; and it does us little credit to claim to be openminded and hospitable towards the great religious traditions that dominate other parts of the world, while at the same time we make little attempt to maintain creative relationships with the various Christian groups which are our next door neighbors. There are at least three reasons that occur to me why we should refuse to accept sectarian isolation. The first one is that it is a denial of one of the basic propositions that we have proclaimed over and over again from Channing’s day to the present. “In all sects, various as they are,” wrote Channing, “good and holy men may be found…” …we cannot help but be made uncomfortable by barriers of non-intercourse that separate us from men of good will in other traditions. The second reason…is the fact that we intend to influence the development of American Protestantism in the coming decades, and it is hard to see how we can do it if we have no contact with anyone else. In the last century the Unitarians were never a large group numerically, but they were influential because channels of communication were open so that they were heard by people who disagreed with them. Contrast, if you will, the influence of the Unitarians in the 19th century, and that of a much larger group numerically, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, who were encapsulated in an ethnic culture and whose influence beyond their own group was almost non-existent. We delude ourselves if we think we are going to conquer America by numerical growth. We can only influence the religious scene by constant communication and interchanged of ideas with people we disagree with. We Need More Dialogue The final reason I would advance for a refusal to withdraw into sectarianism is that we should then deprive ourselves of the opportunity to do a job of constructive thinking of which the world stands very much in need. I tried to suggest at the outset that there are two unreconciled traditions in our culture, one Christian and the other non-Christian; and that our churches occupy a marginal position at the point of greatest tension between the Christian and the naturalistic traditions…Our ability to make such a contribution depends, among other things, on our ability to understand the world of Christian faith no less than the world of scientific naturalism; and that kind of understanding depends on some degree of involvement, not on detached observation. We Must Cooperate …in many communities openness and flexibility may still be found. We should take full advantage of this fact, and not only cooperate in local councils, but contribute our share of knowledge to their activities. There is a second and equally important place where contact and conversation between liberals and other Christians can take place. That is within the precincts of the free universities of this land…That is why, as Unitarians and Universalists reshape their plans for theological education by transfer and merger of some of our present theological schools, the university connections of these schools may well prove crucial. [Wright discusses the recently announced policy to concentrate on seminaries in Berkeley, Chicago, and Cambridge—all Unitarian seminaries by the way, at least in history for Harvard; he discusses many questioning whether to keep supporting Harvard since it is not denominational, but he says that is why it is particularly important to support, because we need our students to come into close contact with those of many other denominations]… The spirit of the true liberal is one of openness to truth from whatever source it comes, and willingness to cooperate with men of good will, despite doctrinal differences. Religious liberals will reach a consensus from time to time on certain religious truths; but what makes them liberals is not the conclusions they reach but the spirit of openness with which they search and find. There are times, and perhaps this is one of them, when religious liberals need to remember that the real test of a man’s liberalism is his willingness to listen—to listen to voices with which he disagrees.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:22:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015