|
Evolving Partnership: The Rise of Universalism Since Merger Murray Grove Association |
||||||
|
Evolving Partnership: The Rise of Universalism Since Merger Murray Grove Association |
||||||
Speaker: Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Chulak
Did the Unitarians subsume the Universalists? Is Universalism gone? Or, did the merger of the two faiths actually produce something new and magical that was different from either of its parents? According to the Rev. Thomas Chulak, who presented the Murray Grove Association Lecture, that's precisely what happened.
At the time of merger of Unitarianism and Universalism, there were significant theological, sociological, organizational and numerical differences, but yet enough common ground to provide the impetus for the merger. The differences were those of degree, not of kind. In fact, there probably was no characteristic that one faith had that the other didn't. Yet, they were different. The Unitarians were more about intellect and reason, and social witness played a more obvious role. The Universalists were more about inclusion and love and had a less centralized organizational structure.
In the 1960s and 1970s the Unitarians dominated, as might be expected because there had been three times as many Unitarians and twice as many of their churches. Moreover, the Universalists experienced the closing of Crane and St. Lawrence, their two theological schools. Then, the world changed, and only five years after the merger, growth in the combined denomination screeched to a halt in a cloud of dust. While some blamed the merger, the culture was changing around all religions. The mainline denominations could not keep up, and every denomination experienced stagnation or declining membership. The Civil Rights struggle energized Unitarian Universalism. It was, after all, a very Unitarian issue, at least as it was framed. The Unitarians, after all, were very good with public, institutional sin. A decade later, we were shaken. In spite of the energy, membership was down, the denomination was in financial trouble and badly split over the Vietnam War and the issues surrounding the Black Affairs Council. As Rev. Chulak said, "So much agitation, so few resources. So much fear."
Then, according to Rev. Chulak, an issue emerged that called to the somewhat dormant Universalist heritage and approach. The fundamental change was triggered by the 1977 Women in Religion resolution. This began a dialog that started the merged religion on a path that fundamentally changed the way we relate. Civil rights and human rights, the nuclear threat, the challenge of living in harmony with the environment were challenging the limits of science and rationality. About this time, Jerry Falwell and other voices of the religious right emerged and spoke diametrically opposite solutions to the same issues bedeviling the UUs. We thrashed about over these issues, faced with dealing with this changing world with our systems basically were individualistic and rationalistic, even patriarchal. We turned to our history, first to the Unitarian history, but found relatively little help in Transcendentalism and other traditional Unitarian approaches.
Then we re-discovered our Universalist roots. Universalist history began to emerge in the late 70s. Under the very noses of the Unitarian majority were some answers they hadn't considered. This new world needed more community, spirituality inclusiveness and love to balance reason, rationality, and individualism. "I believe it was the Universalist tradition that helped us to make that transition from the 70s," said Rev. Chulak. It wasn't that there was anything wrong with the Unitarian approach, it was incomplete. To build a house requires many tools, not just a hammer. When the statement of our principles were promulgated in 1985, the First Principle was the central tenet of Universalism. Admittedly, respect for all persons was important to Unitarianism, but its role was not quite as central as it is to Universalism. A less centralized organization with more responsibility devolving onto Districts began to emerge as well. And then Unitarian Universalism began to grow. Ethical culture, with very similar values to those of Unitarianism, failed to grow during the 80s and 90s when many religions experienced new growth. Rev. Chulak believes that the fusion of the two faiths, with their two, overlapping and complementary visions, provided the key to growth into the 21st century.
At the end, he encouraged the audience to speak in dialogue rather than to debate. There was not universal agreement. The Rev. Scott Wells provided a different vision of Universalism. Others agreed or provided different perspectives. One member, from a Universalist Unitarian congregation, mentioned that after the merger they had taken in the struggling Unitarian Fellowship, and now they have a pagan circle. She said they were asked how they could take in Pagans, and she replied, "If we could take in the Unitarians without getting indigestion, we could certainly make room for the Pagans."
And so what are we? Clearly, we are Unitarian Universalists. Some would say that although Unitarian is first, it is the adjective.Reported for the Web by Bob Hurst; photos by Bill Lewis
General Assembly 2001 · Program Grid
 |
Information Feedback |
