t i r f t r v ' ; ■ " - ,(■.<(( UiV fiv .M! * . „ ... . . .t h\ M‘ ' ■ , r , i- I ■.■''■ '’ f 1 . ' - ; M THE SOCIAL DUTY OF THE UNITARIAN CHURCHES • 4 : xy hHh&£ sOnfey 'mm wMWm$ %S*'- | I ■ ’^WMWkm ■sSHm ■ mm *4 ' "u ? twv ^ |pfe ■kVa# • v., . «; !«3i? ?rJM&.t4*G5 3F^it^ •'«*■£>& s ; ASS** - *?*-' US , ’^Vy- ' gSpfaHl miSm WSgaBm SIwTO 11 i§®i ■ «&& n «&» - ,-r ; . ilwwsisgw a.*. Religion for the New Age. No. 7 PUBLISHED FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION 25 BEACON STREET. BOSTON W'OcMW njpECT , J U (U ?5 L ^T\ vXvsjc5ho-V l OoOTv oS^d o cdt i ar, 3 iW\ tbso FOREWORD At a meeting of the Directors of the American Unitarian Asso- ciation held on September 9, 1919, the following resolution was adopted: VOTED: To authorize the President to appoint a Commission from the Unitarian fellowship-at-large to prepare for the meeting of the General Conference a statement on the duty of the churches in a period of reconstruction. In accordance with this vote I appointed the following gentlemen to serve on this Commission: Dr. Francis G. Peabody of Cambridge Professor (Emeritus) of Social Ethics in Harvard University Alfred T. White, Esq., of Brooklyn, N. Y. John F. Moors, Esq., of Boston President of the Massachusetts Conference of Social Workers Dr. Samuel M. Crothers of Cambridge Minister of the First Parish Church Arthur E. Morgan, Esq., of Dayton, O. President of the Morgan Engineering Company Dr. William L. Sullivan of New York Minister of All Souls’ Church Percy N. Booth, Esq., of Louisville, Ky. Attorney-at-Law Elmer S. Forbes of Weston Secretary of the Department of Community Service of the American Unitarian Association The first draft of the statement was prepared by the Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Peabody. It was then submitted to the mem- bers of the Commission and revised and amended in accordance with their suggestions. It was presented by Dr. Crothers to the meeting of the General Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches held in Baltimore on October 17, 1919. It is now printed as the expression of the purpose and hopes of the Unitarian Churches of America as they confront their social duties in a time of change and reconstruction. SAMUEL A. ELIOT. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/socialdutyofunitOOamer THE SOCIAL DUTY OF THE UNITARIAN CHURCHES T HE end of the World-War confronts the churches, as it does all human institutions, with a new world, of unprecedented problems and critical decisions. Religion, not less than politics and trade, must welcome untried methods and anticipate unsatisfied demands. Each day is a Day of Judgment. It is, therefore, the pressing duty of Unitarian ministers and congregations to consider, deliberately and prayerfully, what con- tribution they may make, from their modest place in the world, to its social sanity and peace. I The preliminary obligation of any religious communion is to recognize and illustrate the social character of the religious life itself. In ail concerns of the modem world, the individual finds himself now summoned to a new era of dedication to the common good . , Co- operation, partnership, federation, are the keywords of the time. This era of socialization gives a new expansion to the sphere of relig- ion, and demands not only a new type of life but a new type of church. Such a church should be, not a club of pew-owners, but a power- house of social energy. It should not abandon or diminish its interest in worship for the sake of the community, but should teach the com- munity the social nature of worship. The chinches of the past have been tempted to show their faith without their works; the churches of the future must show their faith by their works. The church has often sanctified itself through the truth; it remains to sanctify itself for others’ sakes. For this momentous transition the Unitarian churches are, it may be believed, not wholly unprepared. Individualized and self-centered as some churches and ministers may be, as though survivals of another era, the wind of the new time is blowing freely through many congre- gations. Women’s Alliances and Laymen’s Leagues are signs erf the new concern for social welfare. The appreciation that the ministry is underpaid has roused a new concern for this calling, as for other workers, that a living wage and an adequate pension should be secured. The internal socialization of the churches has begun. A Unitarian church which does not thus welcome the new world is not only unawakened but decadent. II This communal consciousness summons the Unitarian churches further, to a clearer understanding of the nature of social service. The denomination inherits a precious tradition of philanthropic initia- tive, of which it is justly proud. The science of poor-relief was, for the first time in the United States, defined and illustrated by a Unitarian minister, Joseph Tuckerman; the protection of the insane was* first secured by a Unitarian woman, Dorothea Dix; the scientific care of the blind and the defective dates from the epoch-making service of a Uni- tarian layman, Samuel G. Howe. The counsels of Charming concerning charity, industry, and temperance are as timely as if spoken today. “We ought to be,” he said, in words of permanent authority, “by pre- eminence Christian Philanthropists.” The same summons to social responsibility meets the Unitarian churches today. The integrity of the family still needs defense from selfishness and sin ; the curses of intemperance and sensuality still breed destitution and disease; the defectives and delinquents still call for care. We ought still to be known as Christian philanthropists. But with the new era has come a democratizing, not only of politics, but of social life. Patronage of the privileged for the unfortunate is no longer worthy of the prosperous or welcomed by the poor. Social democracy means not condescension, but fratemalism. Temporary amelioration of con- ditions remains a part of social duty, but its new problems are those of the exploration of causes, the provision of opportunity, and the anticipation and prevention of remediable ills. Social service 4 now means all which science and experience can contribute to the common good. To this democratizing of social service the Unitarian churches are called, both by the needs of the present and the traditions of their past. Poverty, sickness, sensuality, and crime are at their doors, and wisdom, experience, and rational religion are at their command. They have been trained in the first of the great commandments— the love of a loving God; they are now called to reaffirm, as never before, the second great law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ — the love of one’s neighbor, however outcast or disabled, as one’s self; with the same right to self-development and self-respect, a place in the communal unity, and a claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The science of social service is a part of religious education in a Unitarian church. Ill This communal consciousness of a Unitarian church is not, how- ever, to be limited to the area either of denominational activities or of benevolent expenditure. It must enter the region of economic life and guide the business of the new world. A world-movement of industrial unrest has succeeded a world-tragedy of war. The class- consciousness of employers has been logically followed by the class- consciousness of the employed. In either case the reciprocal obligation of co-operative loyalty has been ignored or defied and the inevitable result has been, not productive peace, but destructive war. Here, then, is a new call to the intelligence, the magnanimity, and the courage of each community. To prolong hostilities is not only wicked but stupid. The claim to a more equitable distribution of the profits of industry is not only clamorous but just. No employer who is gifted with insight or foresight can delay the devising of schemes which will satisfy reasonable claims and ensure the stability of industrial life. Already, however, it is obvious that such schemes, whether of industrial partnership, security of employment, increasing wages, or insurance against the vicissitudes of life, must be the product, not merely of a new mechanism of industry, but of a socialized conscience. They must represent a moral as well as a commercial partnership, a genuine democratizing of industry. Here is a new and compelling sum- mons to all who profess a rational religion. Business life, under Uni- tarian principles, is a form of social service applied to the production and distribution of usefulness. All concerned in such transactions — the manager, the producer, and the consumer — are partners. All have rights and all have corresponding duties. The wage-system alone, in its rigid relationship of master and men, is a relic of an earlier era. This organization of partnership may assume many experimental forms. The producers may themselves become managers, as in a co- operative system; the manager may organize and administer under a profit-sharing plan; the consumers, in the form of the State, may them- selves become both managers and distributors. The practical operation of partnership is a matter of economic adjustment. Religion does not pre- scribe anysingle formof industrial organization. But behind any program of industrial change must stand a change in motive and desire, which alon^can ensure industrial stability and peace. A co-operative system depends on co-operative men; an industrial partnership on reciprocal good faith. Here is the waiting opportunity of the churches — to inspire the men and women who shall make the new world; to carry over the communal consciousness from the life of a worshipping congregation and the neighborly relief of need into the larger problems of the busi- ness world. In this momentous transition the work of the churches has an essential part. Fratemalism in business is the corollary of faith in a fatherly God. Neither party to industrial controversy can justify an association with religion if it does not represent a genuine, candid, and generous acceptance of business life as co-operative service. Wealth must mean stewardship ; labor must mean life ; a living wage must be assuied to any industrious workman; a class-conscious struggle has no prominent place in an industrial democracy; a dictatorship, either of the privileged or the proletariat, is, like all autocracy, a relic of the past.' To these principles the Unitarians are summoned by their tradi- i tions and their ideals. New undertakings of industrial democracy | must be welcomed by them. Radical changes in the conduct of business should not disquiet nor deter them. They should look forward and not back. They should live without ostentation; they should accept pros- perity as a trust, and adversity as a discipline; and they should die, not as those who have been ministered unto, but as those who have been ministers of industrial peace. IV Finally, this communal consciousness of the new era is confronted by international obligations and by the tragic needs of a stricken world. Out of the vast disaster of war has emerged at least one per- manent blessing — a genuine and inalienable sense of human solid- arity, which binds the world into a new unity of duty and hope. The security and welfare of peoples hitherto unconsidered and even un- heard of has become a part of our national self-respect. The community of the future is the world. The world, as the title of a famous book announced, is the subject of redemption. This expansion of sympathy is but a new expression of the religious life. The brotherhood of man is the corollary of the fatherhood of God. To this enlargement and enrichment of their faith the Unitarian churches are peculiarly called. They are free from the limitations , and implications of a dogmatic creed. They can adapt themselves with- i out restraint to unfamiliar forms and a changing order. They believe, with John Robinson, that God has ever more truth to break out of his Holy Word. It is for them, therefore, to welcome the new opportunity of fellowship among divided communions, as among divided nations. If a League of Nations is to be the guarantee of political peace, a League of Churches is not less the condition of religious stability and hop*. Christian unity, which has been so vainly sought by the way of dogmatic and ecclesiastical definition, is already within reach of the new world if it can welcome the simplicity which is in Christ.