Congregational Polity A Historical Survey of Unitarian and Universalist Practice Conrad Wright Skinner House Books Boston iii Copyright © 1997 by the Unitarian Universalist Association, 25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108-2800. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-55896-361-8 Printed in Canada. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 00 99 98 Cover design: Bruce Jones Text design: Suzanne Morgan iv Contents Preface vii Introduction 1 Congregationalism Prior to the Unitarian Controversy 7 “A Due Forme of Government” 7 Departures from the Cambridge Platform 13 The Great Awakening 19 Universalist Polity Prior to 1803 21 Churches of the Standing Order In 1805 26 Denominationalism: Associations and Conventions, 1805-1865 33 The Dissolution of the Standing Order 34 Church and Parish 36 Unitarian Associations and Conventions 38 Universalist Associations and Conventions 44 The Local Church 51 The Ministry 58 Consensus 59 Unitarians and Universalists in 1865 64 Associational Proliferation and Bureaucratic Development, 1865–1898 67 v Denominational, Parochial, and Individualistic Unitarianism 67 Unitarian Developments, 1865–1898 71 Minister and Congregation 82 Unitarian Consensus 87 Universalist Polity, 1870–1898 89 Consensus: The Boundaries of the Universalist Denomination 93 Universalist Administration 95 Unitarians and Universalists in 1899 98 Professionalized Administration, 1898–1937/41 101 The AUA—Administrative Reforms 101 The Churches and the Ministry 109 The Universalist General Superintendency 116 The AUA and the General Conference 122 Universalists: From “Convention” to “Church” 130 The Local Church and Its Minister 137 Unitarians and Universalists in 1937 142 Parallel Routes to Merger, 1937–1961 145 “Unitarians Face a New Age” 145 Universalists: “Forward Together” 157 “Unitarian Advance” 160 Final Movement to Merger 168 The Structure of the Unitarian Universalist Association 172 The UUA, 1961–1985 179 Organizing the Merged Denomination, 1961–1969 179 Persistent Problems, 1969–1985 196 Postscript 207 Notes 215 Topical Index 265 vi Preface This is a specialized study, originally undertaken by request for a specific purpose. It was Eugene Navias who suggested that I prepare, especially for those just entering the Unitarian Universalist ministry, a historical account of congregational polity, as practiced by the denomination and adapted to chang- ing times and circumstances. Polity represents but one strand in the history of the de- nomination and so, while that larger story is repeatedly rel- evant, much of it receives scant attention or is passed over completely here. A specialized treatment of polity may stray from time to time into matters of administration, but that could be a subject for investigation in its own right. So while the outer boundaries of this study are fuzzy, and its useful- ness may extend beyond the special purpose that initiated it, the central focus is polity. Friends have reassured me from time to time that this project is a useful one, and have prodded me to get on with it. I am particularly indebted to the following who have re- viewed parts or all of the text: Wayne Arneson, Philip Giles, Charles Howe, Elizabeth Parish, Eugene Pickett, Peter Raible, William Schulz, Alan Seaburg, Carl Seaburg, Corelyn Senn, Robert N. West, and Conrad Edick Wright. Conrad Wright vii viii Introduction Introduction Congregational polity is so much taken for granted by Uni- tarian Universalists that they tend to overlook its impor- tance, particularly its importance as one of the key elements in the consensus that holds the denomination together. When Unitarian Universalists identify the set of values they hold in common, they resort to high-level abstractions like freedom, reason, and tolerance. Yet the meaning of freedom and toler- ance is revealed more clearly by the way people behave than by the generalizations they utter. So it is a fact of no small consequence that Unitarian Universalists stand in a tradition of congregational polity that is almost four centuries old; that they are much more conservative with respect to the practice of that polity than they are with respect to doctrine; that they have been congregationalist in polity much longer than they have been liberal in theology; that, indeed, their congrega- tionalism has proved to be more durable and adaptable to changing times than any of the doctrinal formulations— whether of God, or human nature, or human destiny—that dominate accounts of the history of liberal religion. There are doubtless a number of reasons why Unitarian Universalists pay little attention to polity, either in their historical accounts or in their contemporary discussion. One of them may be that when the Unitarian controversy devel- oped in the early nineteenth century, leading to a split be- 1 Congregational Polity tween orthodox and liberal congregationalists, the focal points of debate were the Trinity and the doctrine of human nature. Both Trinitarians and Unitarians were congregationalists, so polity was not central in the matters of dispute between them. Hence the liberals readily understood their self-iden- tity in terms of their divergent doctrinal position, rather than in terms of the shared polity. In recent times, questions of ecclesiastical organization within the denomination have tended to be dismissed as matters of “mere administration”— and so not half as interesting as such topics as religion in an age of science, or programs of social action, or getting in touch with one’s feelings. Yet congregational polity remains deeply embedded in the half-conscious awareness of the denomination, so that appeal to its norms is made repeatedly in times of controversy. Because such appeals are evoked by crisis, rather than being derived from ongoing disciplined understanding and study, some curious distortions of congregationalism have resulted. In 1963, for example, in the course of a discussion in the annual General Assembly of a proposed amendment to the bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association, one del- egate declared: “Congregational polity permits the Associa- tion to set theological, liturgical, educational, and financial conditions upon membership, voting, and fellowshipping.” Our polity is important because it defines the way in which we believe human beings should be related to one another for ecclesiastical purposes, and it may be a guide or model for human relationships of other kinds. There are real differences between democratic, hierarchical, oligarchical, and authoritarian patterns of social organization. Behind these social forms lie understandings of the nature of human be- ings. When conceptualized and phrased in theological lan- guage, this means both a doctrine of human nature, and a doctrine of the Church. So polity is not a matter of casual social arrangements, but goes very directly to the heart of basic issues of theology. 2 Introduction These chapters will attempt to sketch the historical devel- opment of the doctrine of the Church as revealed in ecclesias- tical organization and practice among American Unitarians and Universalists. The purpose is not, as some might sup- pose, to define the tradition as normative in such a way as to make it restrictive. It is rather to increase self-understanding, so that we can know more clearly some of the things that make us what we are, and can understand more clearly why we do some of the things we do and why our organizational problems take the shape they do. It may even help us to adapt our ways so as to meet the demands of new situations with- out jeopardizing freedoms we have cherished through the generations. The historical development with which we are concerned may be divided into six periods. The first of these is the period of the “Standing Order” of the churches of New England down to the period of controversy, which soon led to the final separation of Church and State in the early nineteenth century. In this period, the liberals who became Unitarians were part of the Standing Order; the Universalists were in opposition to it but necessarily shaped by its domination. The second period, from the early nineteenth century to the Civil War, is the time of the organization in American Protestantism generally of voluntary associations for ecclesi- astical and charitable purposes. Historians refer to the prolif- eration among the evangelical denominations of societies for the promotion of good causes as the “Benevolent Empire.” Unitarians adopted the identical pattern of organization of voluntary associations. Universalists did not; the differences between the denominations in this period are especially in- structive. The third period, from the close of the Civil War to the end of the century, was a time of increased denominational aware- ness in both denominations. The Unitarians organized their National Conference as their main ecclesiastical body, while the American Unitarian Association (AUA) remained the 3 Congregational Polity chief administrative body; the Universalists consolidated their structure of state conventions, while independent organiza- tions such as the Universalist Publishing House and the Women’s Centenary Association carried on the administra- tion of affairs. The period from the beginning of the new century to the Great Depression was a time of increasing bureaucratic orga- nization among the Unitarians. The weakness of Universal- ist structure was apparent in this period, and the denomina- tion lost ground. In the fifth period, from the 1930s to merger in 1961, the Unitarians found a fresh sense of direction under Frederick May Eliot, elected president of the AUA in 1937, and under- took new ventures—in missionary activity (the “fellowships”), social service (the Service Committee), and religious educa- tion—that had implications for polity. The Universalists cop- ied many of these initiatives. The consolidation of the the American Unitarian Associa- tion and the Universalist Church of America in 1961 re- quired significant restructuring of denominational organiza- tion. In crucial matters, Unitarian precedents were accepted. The ensuing decades were times of stress in American life generally, and increasing fragmentation in the new denomi- nation reflected the turbulence in the society.