THE BOND OF UNION

—by Marietta Moskin

During the emotional and passionate quest for a change in our Bond of Union conducted during the past six months or so, it has become clear that finding different words to express the feelings of what binds us together as members of one congregation is opening up deeper and more fundamental questions about what this church and this denomination means to each one of us. The earnest and thoughtful letters addressed to the Bond of Union Committee give an insight into the fact that to many members, the existing bond of union represents tradition, stability and a link to our past, even though the words themselves date back only to 1922. Other responders reveal misgivings about the Bond even though they had become members in spite of such doubts.

What makes people decide to join an existing religious community in the first place? Is it the liturgy, the music, the communal organization, the sermons and lectures, the outreach opportunities? In our denomination, there is no creed on which to base a thoughtful decision. What must and does attract new members is the chemistry of all of the above. It is a blend of what the Denomination represents and what the particular congregation has to offer. In Manhattan, there are three churches that offer different versions of UU values in the very different ways in which they have structured their congregations over time. Our Denomination gives them the freedom to do so. All Souls is certainly the most structured, most traditionally oriented of the three.

All Souls Church came into existence in 1819 when a motley group of religious seekers decided to start a new kind of non-creedal community based on Unitarian principles but structured according to Congregational traditions of worship and communal rule. The ministers they called over the following decades were generally Unitarian Christians as is evident from the inscriptions on the tablets commemorating them on the walls of our sanctuary. The Bond of Union, written in 1922, reflects this tradition and history.

Institutions evolve over time. Congregations grow in size and diversity. But while it is important to be receptive to different opinions, it is also imperative that changes designed to be more inclusive should not, at the same time, serve to exclude the feelings of those who cherish what came before.

The matters that are now being put before the congregation really deal with two entirely distinct questions. One is whether our existing Bond of Union should be amended in the Bylaws or remain unchanged, and whether it should constitute a requirement for membership. This is a matter two thirds of the congregation can resolve by vote. The other question deals with the language of the Bond of Union as part of the Sunday liturgy.

In general, liturgy is in the hands of the ministers of this church rather than the congregation, although the ministers having been called by the congregation have a responsibility to respect the long standing traditions and wishes of the congregation they serve. The initiative to explore changes in the Bond of Union originated with the ministers in response to questions posed by potential new members and feelings expressed by members who joined in spite of reservations they felt about the Bond.

Neither of the two questions should or need to be hastily resolved since the response by members of the congregation has certainly not been decisive one way or another and the need for more discussion and education may be indicated. Those who wrote to the Board tended to lean more towards retaining the existing Bond although they were probably more galvanized into expressing themselves than those who sought change or were willing to accept it so as not to offend anyone.

The discussions of the past six months suggest that the system of educating potential new members has not totally clarified what it is that those who join subscribe to when they go through the Right Hand of Fellowship procedure or that they understand the traditions of this particular UU congregation.

More than eighty people wrote deeply felt letters regarding this matter to the Board; seventy members attended the special workshops—this out of close to 1500 members of this church. I have chosen to excerpt two letters, one at each end of the spectrum of response, to help all of us understand the depth of different feelings about this matter before we are asked to vote at a future congregational meeting. Lynne Allen’s letter includes most of the points found in the letters supporting our existing Bond in a strong and compact manner. It was harder to find a letter that as strongly represented all of the objections to the words we currently use. Those who want change do not necessarily agree with each other. The one by Rose Patton was perhaps the strongest expression of disagreement. The report by the committee, which we all received, also indicates that there is no clear consensus and it included a questionaire to elicit more information. Unfortunately, the poll that was included—to date, over 430 responses have been returned—did not give us an option to keep the old Bond of Union, leaving some with the impression that the Board has already decided to make a change.

Lynne Allen writes:

I was deeply distressed to see the proposed changes and have been thinking about it for days since I received the letter. I think the thing that bothers me most as a lifelong Unitarian is why so many in the denomination feel that they have to throw out every mention of Jesus and God in church life. I have always been so proud of All Souls because we weren’t afraid to recognize in words and music that there is a meaning and history behind these words. If we aren’t uniting in “the spirit of Jesus,” what are we uniting in? Loving your neighbor as yourself, giving to others who have nothing, etc.—why are we rejecting the teacher and the prophet? I believe that all the empathy and humility and compassion that Jesus displayed is exactly what we want to be uniting around. It disturbs me deeply that Jesus seems to now be linked so often with the Christian right and many liberals and more open-minded people are willing to let that happen. I think Jesus was one of the most liberal open-minded people of all and should not be banished from our Bond of Union. I am also very curious how this change got started since literally thousands of people have joined All Souls knowing that this was our Bond of Union. They must have felt like it was “inclusive” enough for them to sign on as members. I feel that this change is actually “exclusive” to those of us who have modeled our lives on Jesus’ teachings and are living in the spirit of those teachings. In the spirit of “Love” doesn’t say the same thing, in my opinion.

Rose Patton writes:

I strongly support changing the Bond of Union to make it inclusive. My reasons are very personal. Before coming to All Souls I had always been a religious outsider, and had never participated in any religious community. I do not come from a theistic tradition and am on my religious journey sorting through the mysteries of creation and the meaning of life. During the services at all Souls, when the Bond of Union is recited, I have to remain silent, because to me the word “God” implies a commitment to an established theistic tradition and does not describe my beliefs. Change is always difficult, and although many feel the new wording is not perfect, I think it is a step in the right direction of including me, and others who are uncomfortable with theistic terminology. Our UU covenant says we are grateful for the religious pluralism, which enriches our faith, and it also says we affirm the acceptance of one another. I urge you to change the Bond of Union to be all-inclusive of our diverse community at All Souls.

These two letters suggest to me that the congregation has a bit further to go before a resolution to the problem can be reached. In fact, since only a small portion of the membership has expressed strong opinions one way or another, it is difficult to guess what the final vote of the assembled congregation will be. Past experience with the cross and other matters has shown that divisive issues in a church like ours are best approached slowly and with care.

Crossword Puzzle:
“Principles”

Crossword Puzzle
Solution