patrickmurfin

The Unitarian Universalist Association is moving to a more rigid form of Congregational Polity rooted in the traditions of the New England Puritans.  Whether or not that is a good thing has ignited a debate.

The following essay began as a post to the Unitarian Universalist History Chat list as part of a discussion of recent decisions by the Unitarian Universalst Association Board of Trustees onCongregational Polity.  Chris Walton on his wonderfully provocative blog Philocrities posted and article, “Limits of Unitarian Universalist Congregationalism” which set off as lively a discussion of the issues involved as I have seen for a long time.  His piece quotes from the esteemed Elz Curtis, moderator of the history chat.  In response, I posted a version of my earlier missive.  The issues are important and deserve wide consideration, so I am posting a slightly edited version of my essay below.

The recent decision of the Board to disaffiliate many organizations is the natural outgrowth of years of hard work and dedicated agitation to return the UUA to a purer recognition of congregational polity and the role of governance bodies to the exclusive service of member congregations not to individuals or groups who claim relationship with Unitarian Universalism.  This may be a perfect case of be careful what you ask for.

Other moves in this direction include offering special inducements of Congregational presidents to attend District and General Assemblies as delegates (instead of relying exclusively on typically self-selected “GA junkies”, de-emphasizing social justice resolutions (by complicating the process, limiting numbers of resolutions that can be offered, and now by demanding a minimum level of Congregational input for what used to be the multi-year study-action process), and some attempts to restore actual business functions to the GA.

But, of course these actions are being taken by Board, with the support of the administration.  So no one is happy.  Not the purists who despise the Board and Executive model of governance even when it attempts to carry out reforms of which they generally approve, or those who envision a more denominational model in which non-congregational connections can be made and sustained within a broader fellowship.

I understand the appeal of both approaches.  But strict congregationalism, supplemented only by voluntary clustering of local congregations and conventions strictly limited to congregational officers and ministers (Alice Blair Wesley’s beloved model) breaks down connectivity beyond the very local level and excludes the individual entirely.  In this model there are no Unitarian Universalists, only book signed members of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Middlebrow, The First Society Nogodtalkhere, the UU Fellowship of Obscurity, etc.  As soon as an individual, for what ever reason, ceases to be a formal member of a recognized congregation, we are to turn our backs on them.  They can call themselves unitarians or universalists till the cows come home if they want, but they have nothing to do with us.

This is absurd on its face.  Call it heresy, but if denominationalism means finding ways to keep individuals connected to our broader movement, if it can find ways of encouraging communications across congregational boundaries, and facilitate folks working together in a context of Unitarian Universalism, then I am all for it.

An immediate effect of the disaffiliation actions is denying groups opportunities for program platforms at GA and district assemblies.  This is precisely the goal of congregational polity purists.  They wave their hands and say that these folks are free to associate and do what they like, just not here.  And just not under the common binding identity of Unitarian Universalism. 

Many of these groups will continue to exist.  But they will be changed.  Instead of being able to share their gifts with a wider community and with each other, the members of these groups will talk only to each other.  A general conversation among them can exist because folks can and do visit each other’s programs.

Now we history geeks will have our own convocation.  But we will be talking only to ourselves.  With the Board simultaneously pondering slashing support of our traditional denominational seminaries—the only place where Unitarian/Universalist/Unitarian Universalist history is apt to be taught in depth—a   major conduit of institutional memory will be cut off and virtually unavailable to the Congregations we profess to support.

Worse, in the case of the faith groups, it leads directly to balkanization, as if we did not have enough difficulty with that already.  Christians and Humanists already feel marginalized and excluded (often blaming the same individuals and institutions.) Each feels that way because they cannot abide to sit quietly and listen to the language of the other.  Humanists feel “attacked” by “god talk.”  Christians feel snubbed when Bible readings, prayers, or simple rituals disappear from worship and communal gatherings.

How much worse will this be when each gets to nurse their grievances only in an echo chamber?

Finally the strict congregational polity model does not allow enough centralized administration to foster a unifying Unitarian Universalist identity, so necessary for folks to know where to look for congregations when they get the unorthodox itch.  Nor does it allow for the support services for congregations that, like it or not, Beacon Street and District offices provide.

In re-examining or models of organization, surely we can be creative.  We can find ways to simultaneously strengthen congregations, build broader connections, and include those thousands of people wandering the planet today under the delusion that are Unitarian Universalists.