Chapter 5 is a sermon at an ordination and chapter 9 is a
commencement address at Meadville.
Chapter 5 is an illustration of the conflict of
congregational polity with a unifying body. He gives three examples in which the unifying body attempted
to pass measures which would have impact on the freedom of individual
congregations to act, the first two in membership of people of different races
and the third in the choosing of a minister.
He argues that the answer lies in the fellowship of
congregations, as described in the Cambridge Platform. In this system, the UUA and other
groups of congregations in fellowships (I imagine here he means clusters and
regions) would have both the duty and the right to state their case for or
against, but it is up to the church as a whole to permit or deny.
This whole argument for me is one of the greatest
weaknesses of our faith and permeates from the newcomer walking in the door all
the way to Boston. We are
committed to our own freedom but we fail to recognize that our freedom stops at
our freedom to associate. After
that, it is childish, unhealthy and I would also comment, probably contrary to
the will of God to kick up a fuss on every, single topic of conversation that
comes up.
Our ability to form community, to trust that community
and to enter back into community when trust has been broken is terrible. We are very bad at it, handcuffed by
our own pride our misunderstood concept of freedom. This, if not resolved, will be our downfall.
I felt very stupid reading about the fuss kicked up
about the racial mandates in Chicago in 1963 and Boston in 1965. For racial equality to be stopped
because of implementation is an acknowledgement of our own blindspot for our
own weaknesses: our affluence and
our arrogance.
Chapter 9 was a very weird talk. Its point was pretty short and could have been communicated
much quicker: we need
individualists, passion and pure religion (he used Emerson to illustrate this
point) and we need practical doers (he used Bellows to illustrate this point). We need them both. The weirdness comes in that he took so
long and gave so many backup reasons for his assertion. My guess is that he was delivering it
to a bunch of seminarians who all imagined themselves in the model of Emerson
rather than Bellows. I suppose
that his point was that, in choosing to deliver this message on this day that
he was concerned that too many Emersons and not enough Bellows is bad for us
collectively, and bad for the new ministers individually.
No comments:
Post a Comment