Readings: My first reading comes from the ninth report published by the Unitarian Universalist Association's Commission on Appraisal since the Association's creation in 1961. This report, called Interdependence: Renewing Congregational Polity, was published in June of this year. It is a well-considered, well-written report of 173 pages. Among other things, it has helped spawn the survey in the current issue of the UU World. I encourage all members and friends of the Fellowship to fill out this survey. We will be making copies available in the coming weeks. This passage is from the Commission on Appraisal report's conclusion:

We reaffirm the historic centrality of congregational polity within the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member societies, and its affiliates. But congregational polity brings out both the best and the worst in Unitarian Universalism. It brings out the best when it reminds us that power is ultimately in the hands of the membership, the people who are gathered in local community. They know and depend on one another in many ways; they rejoice in one another and bear one another's burdens. They also exercise creativity and moral courage in ways that, as they know, few would do alone. They think of themselves as devoted Unitarian Universalists and the focus of their commitment and their giving has a name and address in their own local community. No wonder, then, that they take deep pride in the fact that they are self-governing and self-sustaining communities.

But congregational polity as we have understood and practiced it also brings out the worst in us. It does this when it invites us to look inward rather than outward, to go it alone rather than welcome the wisdom, aid, or examples of other congregations. Sometimes congregational polity seems to justify a suspicious or hostile attitude toward external authority or higher ups. Even where attitudes toward denominational bodies or other congregations are highly positive, a parochial form of congregational polity often gives absolute priority to the local congregation's needs; financial support of denominational bodies, theological education, or ecumenical or community social-service agencies are not represented at the budget-negotiating table. The negative spirit sometimes infects the congregation; for instance, seeing its purpose in purely self-serving terms; treating the minister as a hired hand whose job is to please people; adopting an attitude that our group is for "our kind of people." An understanding of congregational polity that inoculates the congregation from accountability to other congregations, associations, and established ideals and standards allows such destructive patterns of thought and behavior to perpetuate themselves.[1]

My second reading comes from an open letter from the Rev. Earl Holt, the Minister of the First Unitarian Church of St. Louis, to the Board of the Central Midwest District. In this letter, Rev. Holt notes that suggested dues to the Central Midwest District and the Unitarian Universalist Association have tripled in ten years. During this time, the number of congregations in our District has remained the same, and membership in our congregations has increased only eleven percent. He concludes his letter:

The maintenance of a bureaucracy centered in Boston is not what we should be about, the growth of the District organization is not what we should be about, the growth of the denominational machinery is not what we should be about. What we should be about is the growth and strengthening of our congregations. I am convinced that if we would focus on that task alone and eliminate everything that does not directly and substantially support it, that we would have the resources--of both money and persons--to do the work that so obviously needs to be done.

The Unitarian Universalist form of polity is congregational. Congregational polity puts all power squarely in the hands of each individual congregation. Each congregation is completely self-governing and fully autonomous. Furthermore, our tradition of congregational polity requires both our congregations and our broader UU associations to be governed democratically.

This system of congregational polity is why, for example, this Fellowship conducted its ministerial search eight years ago as it did. A Search Committee was established, constituted and charged by the congregation. The Search Committee spent a year carefully doing its job, finally recommending that I be the candidate for the Fellowship's minister. Then I came and visited for ten days, during which time I preached twice and met with every imaginable combination of Fellowship members and friends. At the end of the ten days, Amy and I went to a nice restaurant for lunch while the congregation met to decide whether to call me as its minister. Each member had one vote. I was called to be the minister here not by the Search Committee and not by the Board. Nor was I appointed by a bishop or some other denominational authority. No, I was called to be the minister of this Fellowship directly by democratic election within congregation. This is how congregational polity works.

Congregational polity is probably a little like democracy: it's a messy, ambiguous way to run things, but no one has come up with a better system. The roots of congregational polity go way back in both the Unitarian and the Universalist sides of our tradition--further back even than the creation of the first Unitarian or Universalist association in North America. Over all these years, congregational polity in one form or another has been our way of governing because it best embodies and expresses our cherished principles of freedom, self-determination, individual autonomy and democracy.

Congregational autonomy is enshrined in the Bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The Bylaws state:

Nothing in these Bylaws shall be construed as infringing upon the congregational polity or internal self-government of member societies, including the exclusive right of each such society to call and ordain its own minister or ministers, and to control its own property and funds.[3]

The Commission on Appraisal believes that both this expression from the UUA Bylaws and our common understanding of congregational polity miss a key component: interdependence and inter-relatedness. They argue that congregational polity has historically not just been about congregational autonomy, but has also been about how our congregations come together as a "community of autonomous churches."[4]

The Commission on Appraisal bases its argument in particular on the Cambridge Platform of 1648. How many people here are familiar with the Cambridge Platform? To be honest, I managed to get ordained and credentialed as a UU minister without ever hearing of the Cambridge Platform. Sshh! Don't tell anybody! The Congregational churches in Massachusetts based their polity on the Cambridge Platform, a document created by a congregationalist gathering to explain congregational governance and discipline.[5] Because Unitarianism in the United States primarily grew out of New England Congregational churches, the early heritage of Congregationalism is part of our heritage, too. The Cambridge Platform is a key foundation of our understanding of congregational polity. The Commission on Appraisal report quotes from the Platform:

Although Churches be distinct, and therefore may not be confounded one with another, and equal, and therefore have not Dominion one over another; yet all the Churches ought to preserve Church-Communion one with another, because they are all united under Christ.[6]

The Commission on Appraisal acknowledges that most UUs today would not now conceive of the interdependence of congregations in terms of unity under Christ. We would more likely today recognize our interdependence as founded on the belief that we are part of the interdependent web of all life.

Two poles anchor today's discussion within Unitarian Universalism about congregational polity. People on one pole advocate a considerably stronger focus on the association to which our congregations belong: the Unitarian Universalist Association. These folks emphasize congregational interdependence rather than congregational autonomy. On the other pole are those like Earl Holt who believe that the focus of Unitarian Universalism should remain on the individual, autonomous congregation. To further illustrate the type of viewpoint embraced by some on the individual autonomy pole: a few of them have objected to the survey in the World as itself an infringement on the autonomy of individual congregations.

Not surprisingly, most Unitarian Universalists who care about polity fall somewhere between these two poles. Although the Commission of Appraisal might argue with me, I would put them in the middle but toward the stronger association pole. I would put myself in the middle but toward Earl Holt's end of things. My spirit is generally not congenial to denominational structures. I tend to be anti-authoritarian, independent-minded, wary of all attempts to put power anywhere other than in each local congregation.

Maybe I'm this way because of my religious upbringing. The year I was born, my family's church was kicked out of the state Baptist convention. We were theologically too liberal, we hadn't baptized anyone in twenty years, and, worst of all, we had just opened a retirement home in which alcohol would be allowed. Being kicked out of a Baptist convention was kind of ironic: the early Baptists in our country were every bit as committed to congregational polity as the congregationalists--maybe even more so. However, the Michigan Baptist Convention's act of kicking my church out of the convention was neither the first nor the last time good Baptists have trashed the idea of congregational polity.

No one in my church seemed to mind being kicked out. As our minister pointed out, we were probably just as embarrassed to be Baptists as most of the Baptists were to have us in their association. Our minister said in a sermon the following Sunday:

The name Baptist as applied to (our church) misrepresents us to the community, is confusing both to us and to the community and is injurious to the integrity of our spirit and to the possibilities of growth that belong to us and should properly be ours.[7]

From that moment to the present time--in spite of a flirtation or two with the Unitarian Universalist Association--my home church became proudly and fiercely non-denominational. As a child, when I was asked what my religion was, I would often answer "Non-denominational." In truth, I and many of my fellow church members were anti-denominational. One of the hardest things for me in deciding to become a minister was the realization that I would in all likelihood need to join a particular denomination.

I suspect this Fellowship's heritage and spirit is not too far from mine. The founders of our Fellowship, for example, very explicitly and intentionally named our Fellowship the Fox Valley Liberal Religious Fellowship in an effort to be broader than a single denomination. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, we in this Fellowship are the descendants of the free-thinking Western Unitarian Conference, a group of radicals that put freedom of individual conscience and a focus on individual ethics at the center of our religion. Our Fellowship has always been proudly independent, anti-authoritarian and wary of denominational power. This common spirit is no doubt part of what attracted you and me to each other.

And there continue to be reasons for wariness. Let me cite three examples. First, as our UUA Bylaws explicitly state, the power to ordain ministers lies exclusively within individual congregations. Yet, these days ordination has become little more than a ceremonial ratification of the credentialing process operated by the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee. As the Commission on Appraisal report concludes, the process of credentialing ministers has become far more significant than ordination.[8] An ordination without the Ministerial Fellowship Committee's stamp of approval is pretty much meaningless, and can actually bring down some unofficial wrath from the UUA on the ordaining congregation and official wrath on the ordinand. What's more, I believe there are serious flaws in the credentialing process. I shared about some of these in my sermon on humanism. I could go on about this, but that will have to wait for another time.

I have also mentioned before a second area of concern: the resolutions process of the UUA. Each year, the annual General Assembly of the UUA considers resolutions about significant issues facing the United States. A complicated process of consideration gives every congregation the opportunity to have a say in the drafting and adoption of resolutions. My principal concern with the process is that once a resolution is adopted, it becomes an official statement of the Unitarian Universalist Association of which you and I are part. The statement is distributed to the media and elected officials, and UUs throughout the country are encouraged to consider acting in response to the resolution. The problem is that not all of us necessarily agree with the statement. Indeed, there are often people in this congregation who don't agree at all. But there appears to be little effort to suggest that the resolution does not speak for all UUs or little recognition that it is contrary to our polity to have any statement made on behalf of all UUs.

A final area of concern is the Principles and Purposes of the UUA. These principles, which can be found on the back of your order of service, were adopted in 1985 by the General Assembly. Though the principles and purposes are not binding on congregations or individual UUs, we often treat them as if they are an official statement of UU beliefs--in other words, a creed. Many congregations even recite them in unison--just like a congregation would recite a creed. Although I embrace the principles and purposes as a good statement about much that is important in Unitarian Universalism to me, I try to remember that they are just a snapshot of some UUs' beliefs at a particular time. I try to remember that some UUs in 1985 and in 1997 do not find the principles and purposes to be an adequate statement of their understanding of Unitarian Universalism.

In spite of these and other concerns, I must admit that my anti-denominational sentiment is challenged by the Commission on Appraisal's report. The report speaks of the danger of putting all of our emphasis on the individual autonomy of congregations: our congregations end up being Lone Rangers, independent but cut off from other UU congregations. We UUs must be careful not to make an idolatry of individualism, lest we end up in the kind of hell depicted in a medieval Jewish story:

A rabbi spoke with God about heaven and hell. "I will show you hell," God said, and they went into a room which had a large pot of stew in the middle. The smell was delicious, but around the pot sat people who were famished and desperate. All were holding spoons with very long handles which reached to the pot, but because the handles of the spoons were longer than their arms, it was impossible to get the stew back into their mouths. "Now I will show you heaven," God said, and they went into an identical room. There was similar pot of stew, and the people had identical spoons, but they were well nourished and happy. "It's simple," God said. "You see, they have learned to feed one another."[9]

We must not let our commitment to congregational autonomy prevent us UU congregations from feeding one another. We must not let our commitment to congregational autonomy prevent us from recognizing and making alive our interdependence.

What are some of the ways we at this Fellowship can feed UUs in other congregations and allow ourselves to be fed by others? Individuals among us can become more active in the life of our Association and District. We can continue to attend gatherings of UUs from beyond our congregation. We can strive over the next few years to increase our contributions to our Association and District. We can work to increase the bonds we feel with our UU neighbors in Ripon and Green Bay, building on the individual ties we have as well as on programmatic connections such as last spring's adult retreat and the Coming of Age program cooperation with the Ripon Fellowship. We can as individuals join the Chalice Lighters, a group of dedicated UUs in our district whose small individual financial contributions support growth initiatives in individual congregations.

I suppose the trick in all this is to respect congregational autonomy while recognizing and promoting interdependence. Though this is not easy by any means, I believe it is possible. We face the same sort of task every day in our congregations: to respect the autonomy of our individual members while recognizing and promoting our interdependence. The dance at the level of our continental association is really the same dance we do here: balancing the individual and the community. Both being a member of a UU congregation and the wider UU movement challenge us to live autonomously and interdependently.

(This sermon was delivered from notes. As a result, this manuscript version differs somewhat from the sermon that was given. This sermon should not be reproduced without the consent of the author.)

[2]Ibid., p. 3.

[3]Unitarian Universalist Association 1996-1997 Directory, p. 436, Section 3-2.

[4]The Commission on Appraisal borrows this phrase from the noted UU historian Conrad Wright.

[5]Commission on Appraisal, p. 17.

[6]Ibid., p. 18

[7]Bertschausen, Roger, Liberal Legacy: A History of Fountain Street Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Fountain Street Church, 1991), p. 110.

[8]Commission on Appraisal, p. 47.

[9]Buehrens, John A. and Church, Forrester F., Our Chosen Faith (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989) p. 119.