Rev. Scott Wells

Since the Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly will be held in Minneapolis this year, I though some choice words from one of the more prominant Universalist ministers to have served in the city would be an appropriate selection. I’m particularly fond of the second Ballou quote, below. I’ll see if I can find the source of his biblical citations, too: an interesting translation. (Well, that was easy: both are from John 16, in the good ol’ King James. I was thinking it might have been one of the early “modern” translations.)

The Arena, vol. 14 (1895), p. 144-154

Progressive Changes in Universalist Thought.

by Rev. Marion D. Shutter, D.D.

read more »

Share this article

As you might tell, I’m interested in Universalism in 1899 — and also back to 1897 — when changes in the Universalist General Convention occasioned great optimism in the denomination. Here is the first set of two featured in the first volume of Who’s Who. Worth a scan. More women than I would have bet, and more temperance activity, too.
read more »

Share this article

Unitarian and Universalist Federation

The Outlook, December 2, 1899, p. 759-60

In The Outlook for November 18 we called attention to the proposed union of the Universalists and Unitarians in one denomination, and to the objections to such a union expressed by Dr. Edwin C. Sweetser, speaking for the Universalists. We did not express any opinion as to the wisdom of denominational unity between Unitarians and Universalists, simply saying that, if there were serious and fundamental differences, between the two Churches, an attempt to bring about organic unity would be unwise, if not impracticable. We have now received a letter from the Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, Secretary of the American Unitarian Association, who, from his official position, speaks with authority; in this letter he takes issue with Dr. Sweetser and corrects a general misapprehension in which we shared. Mr. Eliot points out that no organic welding of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations into one has been proposed. He states the facts as follows:

On May 30, 1899, the American Unitarian Association, at its annual meeting, passed unanimously the following resolution:

“Resolved, That the interests of pure Christianity can be better served by a recognition of the intellectual agreements and the deep faiths of the heart which, beneath all diversity of gifts, bind together the Unitarian and Universalist fellowships in bonds of peace and mutual good will.

“Resolved, That this Association presents its fraternal greetings to the Universalist General Convention, and invites the Convention to join with the Association in appointing a Conference Committee of five representatives from each body, which shall consider plans of closer co-operation, devise ways and means for more efficient usefulness, and report the results of its deliberations to the Association and the Convention at their next meetings.”

These resolutions were duly submitted to the Universalist General Convention on October 23, the invitation was accepted, and the members of the Conference Committee have since been appointed by the Universalist Convention and the Unitarian Association. It will be the purpose of this Conference Committee to endeavor to upbuild sympathy and unity of spirit in the sister denominations, to prevent waste and duplication of missionary effort, and to provide means of more efficient co-operation in Christian work.

Certainly such co-operation and union as this is desirable. Mr. Eliot also takes issue with Dr. Sweetser’s criticism of the belief of the Unitarian body. “His attempt,” says Mr. Eliot, “to prove that the Unitarian body is non-Christian is a repetition of an ancient prejudice which is unworthy of intelligent observers in these days.” We agree in this with Mr. Eliot, but the very decided difference of opinion and of feeling on these matters existing between him and Dr. Sweetser is an indication, as we said in our former paragraph, of a widespread difference in point of view between the two denominations, which would make organic union impracticable. But this does not, in our opinion, interfere with the closer co-operation and fellowship which, as Mr. Eliot points out, is the purpose of the leaders in the two denominations.

Share this article

Dr. Sweetser on Unitarian and Univeralist Union

The Outlook, November 18, 1899, p. 664-5

Dr. Edwin C. Sweetser, in the Universalist “Leader” for October 7, presents with great frankness and great vigor the objection entertained by a portion of the Universalist body to the proposed union of the Universalists and Unitarians in one denomination. His statement of the difference between the two denominations, as he understands it, is put clearly and concisely in the following paragraph:

Agreeing as they do in some respects, they nevertheless differ in that vital respect so widely as to make it impossible for them to promote the interests of Christianity by uniting their forces. Not till the Unitarians accept Jesus Christ as the Universalists do will it be advisable for the two bodies to adopt such a plan as the Unitarians have suggested. Nothing but injury could come from it to the Universalist Church or to the cause of pure Christianity. For the Universalist Church is avowedly and unequivocally and positively Christian. It has been so from the beginning. Not accepting the Trinitarian belief in his Deity, it stands firmly on the ground that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the rightful Lord of all mankind. Its first authoritative creed expressed its belief in “one God, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ;” and its latest declaration of principles affirms “the spiritual leadership and authority of His Son, Jesus Christ;” whereas the Unitarian Church expressly disavows belief in either the Lordship, the Christhood, or the Divine Sonship of Jesus. It refuses to call him the Lord, or the Christ, or the Son of God. Some of its members are willing to call him so—especially some of its older members, and of its devout women not a few—but the Unitarian body as a whole has put itself on record in the most positive manner as not believing in this fundamental postulate of Christianity.

It is not for us to determine whether Dr. Sweetser correctly interprets either the Unitarian or the Universalist position, but it appears to us certain that the question which his article raises ought to be frankly met and fully considered before any union between the two denominations is effected. The disadvantages of attempting an organic union where there is no spiritual unity as a basis have been often illustrated. If it is true that the Universalist Church centers its religion about Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the rightful Lord of all mankind, and seeks the secret of its power in the revelation and provision of divine mercy made through him, and further true that the Unitarian Church does not do this, whatever individual Unitarians may do, but regards agreement in ethical law as a sufficient basis for church unity, the difference between the two denominations is real and vital, and any organic union attempted would be unreal and would not add to the real efficiency of either body.

Share this article

[Note: an interesting work with notes about the Universalist ministerial college, cooperation with Unitarians, and how some saw the development of the 1899 "Five Principles".]
read more »

Share this article

My intent was to use my long-standing Boy in the Bands blog for short and light things, and start moving to more substantial and theological work here — and to make my own named blog the standard bearer.

Well, Boy in the Bands has the readership and light subjects — and denominational ones, which are often quite heavy — make a more interesting hobby. And I don’t have time to write sermons.

After three months of silence here, I should change or put it on ice. I’ll choose to change first; I can always stop it later (as I’ve done with other blogs.)

So I’ll go back to my web roots: transcribing important Universalist documents, perhaps now with more of a curatorial eye. And if that prompts me to write a sermon, so much the better.

Share this article

So it’s been two days since I began my think-piece of gathering an “instant” church. And now a dose of heresy. Why do churches need membership?

In our own history, the parish or society had members based on financial sponsorship, and for a good swath of the history that meant pew rental or ownership. (It’s very easy to have a creedless system on that basis, even though the putative creedlessness of Universalism is grossly overstated. More about that later.) Both the Universalists and Unitarians were slow and often neglectful to nurture the core of the professed believers — the church proper, as opposed to the parish or society — and thus it’s easy to characterize the apparently secular mode of church government we enjoy. (This is most evident where there is a church that goes with a parish or society, or where they were at one point fused. Look for deacons as an institution. And as far as I can tell, the presence of the church proper, with a liturgy, are the best indicators of whether an older congregation stayed Christian.)

That said, I’m inspired — at least provisionally — by the distinction in membership made my the Uniting Church in Australia, which in its new (October 2009, pending approval; PDF) regulations distinguish between adherents and members. (The UCA distinction between baptized, confirmed and members-in-associationmay be less helpful in this context.)

ADHERENTS
1.1.22 In addition to a roll of members, a roll of persons who, though not members or members-in-
association, regularly attend the services of worship and share in the life of the Church shall
be kept. Such persons shall be known as adherents of the Church.
PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1.23 (a)    Adherents may attend and speak at meetings of the Congregation but shall not have
the right to vote.
(b)    Adherents may be appointed as members of committees of the Congregation.
TRANSFER OF ADHERENTS
1.1.24 In the event of an adherent moving beyond the bounds of a Congregation, the secretary of
the Church Council shall forward an appropriate letter informing the secretary of the Church
Council related to the new Congregation of the change.

Not a radical thought — many congregations have more or less formal “friends” — but the enrollment of adherents can be a useful social tool. First, “membership” has less of a hold on people than in generations past, and membership-oriented participation will surely discourage otherwise included people. Second, for membership-minded persons, it provides a manageable step towards membership without over-committing and without the risk of letting a person’s interest wither for trying to get the timing right.

Thinking both about historic Universalist polity of fellowship (though previously applied only to ministers and whole congregations) and Free and Open Source communities’ concepts of membership, I think this new church ought to have a fellowship committee, and that the membership it extends should

• be limited to a term, and then subject to renewal, thus addressing the phantom member problem.
• be based on a recognition of the support of the particular congregation — and thus a reason to extend policy-making power through a vote –  and not an endorsement of a particular spiritual state, which exists independently of church membership.
• be extended on a basis of a “portfolio” of commonly-known community standards, including expressions of spiritual maturity and theological self-understanding, commitment of an appropriate level of financial support, a track record of participation and statement — I’d say “study plan” but that seems too academic — of faith goals the membership candidate wants to achieve under care of the church.

This means membership will be less common, but — I hope — more valuable, and should spare the new church from dilettantes with voting rights.

Share this article

Yesterday’s installment in my think-piece was all about as much as a threatened church planter could do in a day, only concerned the institutional set-up and was theologically-neutral. But very quickly you have to think about what your church stands for and how it stands for it.

This is where I think Unitarian Universalist church planting runs into the rocks. With our history of the geographical parish, there’s a presumption that there’s one parish that accommodates all the would-be Unitarian Universalists in its area. (You see it in our church naming conventions.) Which is exactly backwards to preaching the Gospel within a particular tradition and with a particular charism (gift) and gathering people to that church. Little wonder then that Boston — which was outside the parochial system — had and has a wider diversity of Unitarian and Universalist churches than anywhere else. Let’s consider Boston as “the metropolitan model” in contrast to the parochial model and work thence.

I was brought up thinking theologically that Maria Harris, the religious educator, could do no wrong. Her curriculum for a church’s self-expression is certainly a great place to start. (The Unitarian Universalist Association has, in fact, published a guide by Gaia Brown about Harris’s Fashion Me a People which may be downloaded as a PDF here. I do fault it for replaying the we’re-not-Christian-we’re-different saw again. Is it so hard to accept a Christian’s scholarship without reacting defensively?) This means I’d want to get a standard of worship down.

Easy peasy. I’d choose the simplified Protestant liturgy seen across the mainstream. “Emergent” worship practices — while hip right now — are likely to age as badly as parachute pants. Since hymnals are heavy and expensive, I’d forgo them in favor a hymn printing license from one of the larger non-”praise” licensees, like OneLicense. Because so much of the liturgical reform since the 1980s has worked under the unspoken rule of “more words is better” I would seek out slightly older, leaner texts to shape worship. In a move away from liberal Christian practice, this would mean looking before the Vatican II-inspired changes and also ditching the Revised Common Lectionary (and its assumption of church member who never miss worship and who can follow a three-year arc.) Give me, instead, the briefer traditional one-year lectionary and an opportunity to learn from the Old Testament in a more interactive environment.  And before you ask: yes Unitarians and Universalists did once use this lectionary and the vast majority of the matching collects. The Anglican church in Melanesia has a version of the collects (with that lectionary) in simplified but dignified modern English. And they’re in the public domain.

Share this article

A mental exercise, in the spirit of a bad 1980s film. I must organize a church — the promise of a fairly successful church — by Sunday . . . Or Else.

The reason for this exercise is obvious. Unitarian Universalists (and other liberals) aren’t good at gathering churches, even though successive generations of new churches are necessary for a healthy ecosystem and are the best way of attracting newcomers. We treat them as the sort of thing we just have — little wonder; next to the Episcopalians we probably have the largest number of state-sponsored church foundations in the United States — or which spontaneously arise from groups of well-cultivated laypersons. The sun has set on both phenomena, and today we grow churches that limp towards a membership of thirty or forty, but rarely more. Indeed, those that don’t shrivel on the vine simply rot. So . . .

First, I pull out my address book and call my friends (many ministers; some not), asking for prayers, seeing if any would be willing to be an initial incorporator — no way I’m going to have an unincorporated church — and see if they would be willing to consult on the project. Then, as church organizer, I browse to the state- (or District-) appropriate page on the Legal Guide of the Citizen Media Law Project, to see what the incorporation and other requirements are. Fortunately, there are often more lenient options for churches than media organizations. So I work through the list and get the Federal Employer Identification Number and download incorporation details.

I brainstorm some names — running them past my friends for feedback, with a consideration of how it would be abbreviated — and register the appropriate .org of the best two or three using a domain registrar like NameCheap. I get a handy email address from Google, and with it email the UUA District Executive and an insurance agent like one from Church Mutual, and introduce myself. I use the email address to get accounts, using a short-format version of the church name, on Facebook and Twitter for later outreach use.

Next, I consider where the meeting Sunday will take place. On such short notice, I would pick the best I could afford: convenient in the mode of transportation I imagine people would use, and no farther than an average workday commute from the group I’m trying to reach. A hotel meeting-room will suffice.

And more tomorrow.

Share this article

I’m diving back into the roots of Universalism, so I’m reading two books.

The first is Ann Lee Bressler’s The Universalist Movement in America, 1770-1880, which I’m sick to say now sells for $85 new. (It was even remaindered for a while.)

The other is one of my treasures: the 1811 “pirate” edition of Hosea Ballou’s Treatise on Atonement. This still has his home-spun turns of phrase, largely eliminated in the standard 1835 edition (which stayed in print until 1986, and which therefor a number of living persons still have.) Because it’s rare, if I run across interesting passages, I’ll post them here.

But I’m a slow reader, so any reportage will come in fits and starts.

Share this article