During this General Assembly we are celebrating forty years since consolidation of the Unitarians and Universalists. Even though both of these traditions had been talking to each other and exploring the possibility of coming together for over a century, it was not until May of 1961 that the two became one, at least organizationally.

Consolidation did not mean that the two pasts became one, but was rather an agreement that these two distinct traditions would travel together into the future, not knowing what it would bring. We know that organizational oneness does not mean theological oneness or the oneness of a people. Whenever you bring together two historic traditions such as the Unitarians, with over 400 years of history, and the Universalists, at the time of merger with just under 200 years of history, one realizes that there are differences and those differences are going to impact the relationship.

What were the differences? If one looks to beginnings, which so impact identity and patterns, the Unitarians in America came primarily from the Standing Order of Massachusetts. Unitarians were part of the establishment. These churches came into being filled with the elite of the community as part of the congregation.

The Universalist roots were quite different. In fact, in certain parts of the country, they had to fight the Standing Order to be recognized. They were part of the disestablished: the ones who had to work their way in the culture and fight for recognition and respect. They were part of the grassroots of the new nation and had to find those who would respond to their message. They had to organize using passion, power and conviction. The Universalists were connected to the soil, to the small towns as well as the cities. Their sociology was quite wide. These sociological differences were significant and they impacted the consolidation process. Sociology makes a difference in whether you can communicate and trust one another. We know that now as we try to expand our universal appeal.

There were also some fundamental theological differences, particularly in relation to Christianity. The Unitarians, coming out of Liberal Christianity, had for the most part moved to a post-Christian stance. They had moved to a humanism that affirmed science, which had taken them far away from the Unitarian Christianity of Channing. Yes, there were congregations in the Unitarian fold that were Unitarian Christian, but they were in a significant minority. On the Universalist side, many more congregations were connected to the Christian tradition. In fact, the major controversy, theologically, at the time of consolidation was whether Jesus should be in the statement of purpose. The argument went back and forth, until finally there was a compromise which affirmed the Judeo-Christian Heritage with its love to God and love to man.

Another area of difference was organizational. The Unitarians and the Universalists both had congregational polity as central affirmations within their traditions. But for the Universalists, the State Conventions were where associational authority resided. Within the Unitarians the headquarters in Boston was more of a place of authority.

At the time of consolidation, both traditions had been experiencing a strengthening. The Unitarians were rapidly growing while the Universalists were declining, but not as fast as previous decades. This strengthening helped the consolidation process.

Another area of difference had to do with size. The Unitarians had three times as many members as the Universalists at the time of consolidation and twice as many congregations. In terms of authority and power, these differences impacted the coming together.

In addition to these factors, both traditions were part of the larger umbrella of liberal religion but emphasized different aspects of that tradition. For the Unitarians, historically and at the time of consolidation, the focus was upon freedom, reason, the intellect, authority of the individual, the capacity of the rational, the search for truth and working for social justice within a vision of one world. The Universalists, coming out of their heritage, had an emphasis on love, the worth and value of every person, the sense of inclusiveness and a belief that we are all connected and that there is a universal spirit that touches us and moves us. There was a willingness to bring together the emotional and the intellectual as well as an exploration of universal values that would transcend any particularity. At the time of consolidation, there was a common ground in a broad liberalism, but there were significant theological, sociological, organizational and numerical differences.

So what happened? Seventy-nine percent of the Universalist congregations voted for consolidation and ninety-one percent of the Unitarians voted favorably, and so they came together.

You can understand that there were fears on the part of the Universalists. Would they lose their identity within such a larger body and would their way and perspective be lost? To some extent, these fears did become a reality. In the 1960’s and 70’s the Unitarian tradition dominated. The first principle that was agreed upon at the time of consolidation was the “free and responsible search for truth” as a foundation of our being together. This first principle had its primary foundation with the Unitarian side of the consolidation.

At that time, as well as today, when someone would talk about the consolidated body, they would leave off the second name. It would be Unitarian this and Unitarian that… And what happens when you drop a part of a name? You drop a part of your identity. Now more and more of our congregations are using “Unitarian Universalism”, and that is not by chance.

Also, no sooner had the consolidation occurred than the two historically Universalist theological schools, Crane and St. Lawrence, were closed. What happens when you close these theological schools? You cut off a portion of your identity and connection to your roots.

If it hadn’t been for the fact that there was political wisdom to include strong Universalist leaders in the new Association, the tension and the anger would have been even greater. Some of the great leaders of this time and into the present were from the Universalist tradition.

But by the mid 1960’s, just a few years after consolidation, the new consolidated Unitarian Universalism started to decline. A lot of people were pointing and saying it was because of the consolidation. There may be some truth to that, but how do you explain the fact that every mainline denomination in the United States was also declining? The culture was changing and the religious institutions, including Unitarian Universalism, were not able to adjust fast enough.

The turmoil in the larger society made a huge difference. From my point of view, the reason for the downward turn, that was fifteen years in duration from approximately 1965 to 1980, was due more to what was happening in the larger culture than to what had happened as a result of the consolidation. In the early part of the l960’s, the energy within the new association was palpable. The Civil Rights Movement gave us a sense of mission and purpose. But then came an increased suspicion about institutions. You add this to our already suspicious nature and you have the ingredients for decline. This was also the time of the Vietnam War and many of our congregations split over the war, particularly at the beginning. There were tensions. Then late in the 1960’s came the Black Power Movement and we were not prepared to share power as Unitarian Universalists and it split us internally. The outside was influencing the inside and we lost a lot of people, including many people of color. On the heels of this were the women’s movement, the ecological movement, the sexual revolution and the increasing threat of nuclear war. And our belief in science and technology was being challenged. This was a very difficult time.

A decade after consolidation, here we were, Unitarian Universalists, and we were shaken. The culture shook us, but internally we were also shaken. Our numbers were down and we wondered about the future. There were significant financial troubles in our congregations and association. Conflict seemed to be wherever we turned. At the UUA services were being cut back, and the promise that had been made to the Black Affairs Council in 1968 was reneged upon in the early 1970’s. There was so much agitation, so few resources, and so much fear. What was happening to us?

At this time, I was a young adult and had become active in one of our congregations that was being impacted in a major way by all the cultural changes. But even with all the unease, this congregation opened itself to me, which eventually led me into ministry. When I decided to go theological school in l975, I went to a denominational executive and asked if I should go into ministry. He said go, but you probably will not get a job when you graduate.

My first ministry was in a Universalist congregation. It was during this time that I first became aware of the organizing of the women with Unitarian Universalism, and of one of the most important actions in our history which came in 1977 in the form of the Women and Religion Resolution. The resolution challenged us to find new ways of relating and more inclusive language. It also challenged us to move beyond patriarchy. We needed new ways of being with one another. This resolution opened up a dialogue, and once we started talking we realized it was more than sexist language we needed to change. We also needed to look at our relationship to nature, peace, race, gays and lesbians, and the disabled. This was, I believe, the most critical time since merger. We were asking ourselves: Who are we now?

When we as human beings have gone so far that we open ourselves to the point where we do not know who we are anymore, we can either run away or hang right in there and find out what is emerging. Fortunately, we kept exploring and searching. Groaningly and grudgingly we moved into a new future.

We knew that so much had happened since consolidation. The culture had impacted us. So we began a process to define ourselves, that took eight years. Influenced by all that had happened in the larger world, we headed into the unknown.

It was at this time that the religious right began to organize. This was the time when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson began to grow their organizations. They were responding to the same things we were, but differently. They wanted to hang on to patriarchy. We luckily had enough in our past and present to allow us to stay in the uncertainty. We began a definition process to find out who we were.

In the process of seeking a new statement of purposes and principles we discovered that we were not the same as we had been twenty years before. We also at this time heard the increasing call for community. Was there any larger spiritual connection we might have that would move beyond rationality but not be irrational? Was there anything that might nourish and connect us?

We had been declining for about 15 years. Where is the energy? Is there anything we can count on? And how are we going to deal with all our diversity in our midst?

A whole worldview was being challenged which at its roots was male, Eurocentric, and individualistic. In 1978, Rianne Eisler’s book The Chalice and the Blade was published, and the heart of that book said that we have to find another way of being together. We have to find partnership. It was a profoundly exciting and scary time. You could feel the energy and resistance.

This was the point, I believe, when we began to ask the question: What in our past can help us with this changed situation? Because the Unitarian tradition was strongest, we knew that history quite well and therefore it was easy for us to draw upon Transcendentalism and other movements within that tradition. Then, almost as if there were a phoenix rising, people began to say: “Is there anything that is within our Universalist heritage that might help us? The answer was yes. And writings began to come out on Universalism. And we found in Universalist history some of the responses we were seeking and some of the insights we needed to deal with a changing world. In this tradition we found a more communal, spiritual, emotional, passionate approach that was at the same time reasonable.

I believe it was the Universalist tradition that helped us make this transition in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. We did need freedom, reason and tolerance, but also needed love, dignity, and inclusiveness. What a wonderful combination, and all of it was there when we needed it.

After eight years of process, our purposes and principles came out in 1985; and what was the leading principle? It was dignity, which was integral to the doctrine of universal salvation, and affirmed that everyone was important and nobody was going to be in hell forever. Every person had dignity and worth. This affirmation was central to Universalists and important to Unitarians. And the last principle, which was clearly influenced by the ecological movement, had its roots deep within Universalism, and it affirmed the interdependent web. To me, this was just another way of talking about love.

What was not present at the time of consolidation was growing twenty-five years later. It was an emerging partnership. And not only was that partnership theological, but it was also organizational. At this time, we also began to move staff out of the headquarters in Boston and to build up the districts; that was more in keeping with the Universalist way of being organized. Now there was really more of a balance between headquarters and regions and congregations than there had ever been since the time of consolidation.

This was an amazing time. It was a turning point for Unitarian Universalism. And we were lucky to have both traditions. It was at this time that we began to turn things around and we started growing again. And we were also fortunate to have O. Eugene Pickett as the UUA President. Even though he was a raised as a Unitarian, and had opposed consolidation, he was, from my point of view, the embodiment of Unitarian Universalism. He had a way of combining love and humility with reason. His presence was critical to this time. And together we turned Unitarian Universalism around.

It was not inevitable that we would reorient ourselves at this period of time. It took leadership and courage, and we were aided by our past as well as the generosity of the Shelter Rock Congregation of Manhasset, New York. Others with similar values as ours were not able to turn at this period and have been declining ever since. It is also true that, during this time, most mainline denominations were declining.

Why did we grow? Why did we turn it around? It was because, drawing upon our past, we were willing to change in the present. And isn’t that the heart of Unitarian Universalism? Isn’t it the willingness to have enough faith and trust to move into the unknown?

So we developed new ways of thinking and new ways of sharing power. There was struggle, excitement, fear, and change. Some said, "We are losing our way. This is not Unitarian Universalism”. And that was true. It was not the Unitarian Universalism of the 1960’s and 70’s.But it was Unitarian Universalism with more of a Universalist twist.

We have kept pressing the circle wider, while still being true to our histories and our core values. And even to this day there is tension. We know it in our congregations and in ourselves. Tension sometimes between definition and pluralism. Who are we anyway?

But when we get too wide, we do come back and define ourselves. You’ve got to open up in order to find out who you are. Tensions are now being experienced between feeling and intellect, the heart and the head. There are tension between humanism and spirituality in our congregations. There is a continuing tension between our congregations and the headquarters in Boston. There are tensions around the issues of inclusiveness, particularly as it relates to anti-racism and anti-oppression work. Tensions are present. But we know that without tension there is no growth. We have been growing in so many ways these past 20 years.

Forty years ago, creators of consolidation could not have envisioned what would happen. Sometimes in those forty years we have been in the wilderness, and we have not been able to see the promised land. But yet we kept on traveling together to try to find it.

And isn‘t it amazing and somewhat ironic that the so called weaker tradition at the time of consolidation became central to the renewal of our faith?