 |
|
|
|
|
PART THREE
WHAT IS
INVOLVED IN CONSIDERING MERGER OR ALTERNATIVES
The material in
the Introduction and Parts I and II presented the general background and
evolution of both the liberal denominations to the present and the make—up
of the important parts. It is hoped that many questions have been answered,
although it is likely that numerous others have been raised also. Each
person will make his decision not alone on available facts, but upon what
others say and think. He will want to think about whether there should be
merger or not, and if he favors merger, he will undoubtedly envision some
form he prefers. On the other hand, if he favors sustaining the status—quo
or dissolving all forms of cooperation, he will give attention to what is
involved in such decisions. The purpose of this part is to present and
discuss possible plans for merger or other alternatives.
The possible
forms of merger and the alternative plans contained herein are not complete
in every detail. The purpose of this Manual is to present essentials, major
data, structure, etc. To write out in full detail the complete picture on
each possible plan or alternative would add several hundreds of pages to
this document. For example, the full report on a Possible Plan of Merger,
presented in Chapter XV in condensed form, constituted 80 pages.
It must be kept
in mind that any plan or alternative contains many variables. The plan
writer has to consider which among the variables best suits a particular
situation. For example, shall the chart of organization look this way or
that in form; what shall the officers and staff members be called; what
form the by—laws; what headquarters functions shall exist and by whom
administered and how staffed; how shall financing be arranged; within all
these areas lie many choices. Readers should not be disappointed if they do
not find in any of them all the features they would like. No plan ever
drawn suited everyone fully and completely. It is suggested that
consideration be given to the principles involved rather than to the lack
of all details or to a particular application of a principle.
Throughout all
presentations of possible plans or alternatives certain fundamentals of
both liberal denominations have been kept in mind as absolutes and
invariables: continuance of congregational polity; representative national
legislative bodies; democratic principles observed at all points and on
all occasions; freedom of speech; recognized avenues for redress and for
expression of views and desires; suitable checks and balances so that the
people of the denomination may at all times have a voice in how things are
done; no invasion what—ever of the individual church’s privileges, rights
and prerogatives, including the idea that any church may have or take any
name it chooses at any time without regard to what the official name of the
national organization might be.
This report
contains no detailed discussion of the legal aspects of merger. General
opinion is that churches and fellowships should vote for or against merger,
thus establishing the general will, before it would he advisable to spend
serious sums of money in legal work. If, for example, much legal work is
done prior to settling the issue on principle, it is possible that
considerable expense might be wasted depending on which way the majority
vote goes. A vote for merger would entail one set of legal expenses,
whereas a vote for withdrawal (the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. going their
separate ways) would involve a different set.
On the general
proposition of merger, counsel for the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. have advised
the Commission that it could he accomplished by a consolidation of the
present corporations into a new corporation. This was the method for
establishing the Liberal Religious Youth, which is a Massachusetts
corporation and which was authorized by legislation permitting the
corporation to hold corporate meetings anywhere in the United States. In
the case of the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. special legislation in both
Massachusetts and New York would be required to authorize a merger or
consolidation. All funds held by each headquarters would need to be studied
legally. Many could be transferred to the consolidated corporation as a
part of the consolidation, although others would probably need court
approval for such transfer. Trust funds would continue to be held and their
income distributed for the same basic purposes, and in cases involving
specific beneficiaries — for the same beneficiaries.
With regard to
expanding tire Council of Liberal Churches, legal difficulties have been
suggested on the question of the extent to which one corporation, i.e.,
either the A.U.A. or thin U.C.A., may delegate or transfer any of its
powers, duties or responsibilities to another corporation. Assuming that
these difficulties could be overcome and that the C.L.C. could be fully
expanded, sooner or later questions as to funds would need to be resolved.
A withdrawal
would involve legal disentangling of the C.L.C. and the L.R.Y. These two
corporations do not have large assets, hence the problems would not be
serious.
It is not
anticipated that the establishment of an interdenominational council would
involve many serious legal questions; likewise, the formation of a
committee on cooperation.
CHAPTER XI
THE
IMPLICATIONS OF MERGER AND TWO POSSIBLE PLANS
Some persons
are interested in the question of
what good will merger bring, and how should a merger be effected. Other
persons feel strongly that merger has numerous disadvantages and should be
dropped from further consideration. The purpose of this chapter is to
present a comprehensive list of the advantages and disadvantages of merger,
the changes that merger would involve, and two possible plans for merging.
Advantages and
Disadvantages of Merger
The material
presented under this topic was prepared some months ago for the
consideration and reactions of the Commission members since no
comprehensive list of advantages and disadvantages of merger was available.
A list form is used to conserve space.
Advantages of
Merger
1.
A new liberal religious denomination would have more strength at the
local level and its members as congregations and as individuals through
greater impact of programs at the grass roots would be in a better
competitive position regarding the social, economic and ideological
manifestations of surrounding orthodox religions.
2.
Sectarianism is inherent in each present denomination and this is
inherently exclusive, consequently, a merger would be advantageous because
it would lessen or eliminate to a large degree present manifestations of
sectarianism.
3.
In many ways, both Unitarianism and Universalism are seeking for the
same general answers to serve the needs of liberal religious life, hence, a
merger would combine the forces which seek the same answers and render
better answers.
4.
Each of the two liberal religions seeks to translate the ethical
drives of people into organized channels to create group opportunities for
doing something concrete about human relationships and social issues. It
would be advantageous for such religions to merge their energies and
resources in order that one of the fundamental sanctions for existence
might be more fruitfully implemented.
5.
Both of the liberal religions contain a vitality as witness their
separate existences over many years; the factors composing these respective
vitalities, while not equal in dimensions and intensities, are nonetheless
complementary in nature, as has been evident in recent years when a
significant volume of cooperation has been growing at all levels; the
things which have kept goals and ends alive would be more important if they
were put together.
6.
The growing edges of each of the
two groups while distinctive, are not markedly different in principle
or intent; each is constantly
striving to improve its message and ministry, each is colonizing according
to the same sets of policies, each is striving to improve social
conditions, each is conscious of the need for improving its denominational
strength and position, each is stressing a commonly held pattern of
religious education, each is trying hard to enlarge and enrich its message
to modern man, each is trying to improve churchmanship at all levels and in
still other ways there is a marked degree of parallelism. It would be
advantageous to have these growing edges in common, under one organization.
7.
The ideational and theological emphases expressed by the respective
leaderships are also parallel and in some areas identical. Since the basis
of comparison is not on what the mass of members now believes, but rather
on what present leadership expresses, it would be advantageous if through
merger an enriched amalgamation of ideas came about.
8.
Both denominations, the Unitarians in the early 1930’s and the
Universalists a year ago, through the processes involved in a searching
examination of strengths, weaknesses and indicated directions and
emphases, rediscovered and redirected their respective energies into more
effective uses and in so doing not only uncovered unsuspected values, but
also found that each, to be successful, needed about the same ingredients;
as a consequence, the almost identical processes that have been used by
each denomination to increase its effectiveness would be of increased
value if used together since merger is a natural consequence of these
procedures.
9.
The ministry in general would he strengthened through an increased
number of trained and experienced persons, thus affording a greater common
voice with common goals, particularly since a number of ministers in both
denominations were trained at the same theological schools.
10.
The work and activities of the ministers’ associations at all levels
would be enhanced through availability of more trained manpower.
11.
The scope of the work at the headquarters level could be broadened
and intensified through combined operations, thus aiding liberal religion.
12.
The present Uni—Uni churches, the CLC, and other forms of
cooperation indicate the Unitarians and Universalists have found
rapprochement to varying degrees.
13.
If merger does not come about, and assuming that cooperation
continues to grow at the local and regional levels, the respective
denominations may find themselves in embarrassing positions; moreover, if
the cooperative process increases, there will be increasing confusion at
the top levels, which may result in a slowing down of the advance of
liberal religion. It would be more advantageous therefore to effect merger
a planned, orderly basis than to have it happen in any other manner.
14.
Merger would be advantageous to both segments of a united church
from an organizational point of view;
the Unitarians would be relieved of dual national bodies (May
Meetings and General Conference), and split responsibilities at
headquarters while the Universalist segment of the new denomination would
gain significantly from increased national leadership and initiative; the
relief of pressures for improving organization on the one hand and for
strengthening organization on the other have natural consequences in making
a merger not only an improvement over either, but also a stronger
organization with greater depth.
15.
Strength can arise from diversity of ideology and belief within a
common framework. It is highly doubtful that either denomination can lay
claim to complete exclusiveness of ideology and belief or the greatest or
least amount of diversity in these matters; if as is claimed, liberal
religion has made strides because of variety and diversity, then merger
would be a distinct advantage.
16.
Merger would be advantageous because it will or should stimulate
present Unitarians and Universalists to a heightened sense of what it means
to be genuinely liberal. in religious life and belief; moreover, the
adjustments to thinking and perspective which a merger should bring should
mean an advance for liberal religion over what either present denomination
could achieve independently.
17.
Neither denomination can lay claim to a distinctly superior and
widely acclaimed and sought after ideology; at the present time, like all
other institutions, each denomination has selective factors unique to its
makeup which ultimately will mean a ceiling on size and resources of each;
however, creating a new denomination should provide a changed and enlarged
set of factors which would mean a lifting of the ceiling of probable size
and resources larger than both together now have.
18.
Duplication of energy and expense at the regional and state levels
would be gradually eliminated.
19.
The patterns of church size and location are complementary. The
Unitarians have developed special skills in churchmanship and the
Universalists have done likewise, both with inference for the patterns of
church size and distribution, among other factors. While the skills and
experiences overlap in many ways, each set would contribute to the other if
there were a merger.
20.
Both names — Unitarian and Universalist — have sectarian
connotations largely in doctrinal terms, therefore it would be an
advantage if some name could be devised for a new denomination which would
more nearly indicate the real meaning of liberal religion.
21.
All denominations lose churches from time to time, including
Unitarians and Universalists; likewise all denominations have marginal
churches including the A.U.A. and the U.C .A. , and while it is true that
there are more marginal Universalist than Unitarian churches, there are not
as many such churches in the U.C.A. as is commonly supposed; a merger would
force reassessment of all churches with the likelihood that it would bring
new interest and renewed strength to a significant number of such churches,
thus avoiding the loss to liberal religion of some present churches.
22.
A merger would he advantageous because it would mean the bringing
together of present resources created by ministers and laymen in each
denomination in such matters as community relationships and community
organization for the purposes of advancing liberal religion, i.e.
, in localities where at least one church or fellowship of each
denomination is presently operating. This applies with equal vigor to local
public relations activities.
23.
Even though, as shown immediately below, Unitarianism has grown
quite rapidly from 1940 to the present, outstripping both the rates of
growth of the population and U.S. Protestants during that period, the fact
remains that at the present time there are only 102,000 legal members in
the AUA, and around 42,000 in the UCA, giving a total in the U.S.A. of only
144,000 legal members. While there are arguments on quality versus
quantity, and, also that statistics per se do not fully measure the
vitality of a denomination, all things taken together, it seems reasonable
and logical that liberal religion could move ahead faster if present
segments were combined.
*First named
year in each column used as base except as follows: 1900 used for
population base in first and third columns
**Basic data
furnished by National Council of Churches
# Census
reports and AUA Yearbooks (legal members)
## Census
reports and UCA records (legal members)
Note:
Basic data used in above table
Disadvantages
of Merger
The
disadvantages of merger include:
1.
Some of the present ministers and laymen in both denominations
would face a period of readjustment and may find it difficult to align
themselves with a new system that requires de—emphasizing or possibly
eliminating denominational identities which mean a great deal to them and
the modification of the working relationships, sanctions and mores that
have been painstakingly built up in each present denomination.
2.
Building new traditions, new overall identities, reshaping
loyalties, replacing the two national and the several State Convention
organizations and their administrations with a new system, plus realigning
social structure coupled with loss of current identity, will for a period
produce confusion and possibly some obstructions due to reluctance to give
up present organizations, meanings and purposes and may handicap merger in
addition to each denomination losing the progress it could be making.
3.
Attitudes and opinions about the worth and validity of merger vary
from region to region and similarly among state conventions; in areas where
significant doubt exists, it may take overly long to make merger really
effective and fully operative; moreover, some churches may possibly decline
to become members of the new denomination.
4.
There are many funds held at the local, state and national levels in
the U.C.A., while the bulk of Unitarian funds is held at the national
level; this condition will require legal attention which may be expensive
and time-consuming; moreover, the situation may involve voluntary
realignment and changes in procedures of raising and allocating money in
the future.
5.
From the viewpoint of local church needs and services required of
the whole denomination, it would be best to have as much fluidity of funds
as possible so that they may be used to the greatest long run advance of
liberal religion — unless transfers of funds can be made from states to
regions which in some cases may involve the legal process of cy pres
(ruling that a new purpose for which an old fund is planned would be in
accord with the donor’s original intention) could be applied, it is
possible that funds could be ‘bottle—necked’ in areas for which there is
little real use for significant sums of money.
6.
The right and left wings of liberal religion in a new denomination
would be both broadened and also intensified by a merger, thus changing the
patterns of present initiative and until a few years pass, considerable
energy will he used in a power struggle entwined with the realignment
processes which might otherwise be used for better purposes.
7.
Realigning the two denominations into one means a significant
increase in the number of churches to which the new headquarters would need
to relate. This increased load may turn out to be of such nature, not
indicated by mere statistics of combining numbers of churches, that the
size of staff necessary on the national level may be much larger than
indicated by any present plans for merger.
8.
The total respective denominational resources, not including local
church property, are significant in amounts yet they are disproportionate;
this condition may be regarded as a serious disadvantage by some persons in
both present denominations.
9.
it is conceivable that national office public relations program
makers would have difficulty in securing agreement on what the new
denomination stands for either ideationally or message—wise, thus creating
a time gap in promotion initiative, causing a slow down, or rather, not as
much gain as might he expected, at least for a time.
10.
In connection with pensions and/or retirement allowances, merger
will make necessary the recalculation of such benefits and the
probabilities are that the amounts for new pensioners would be less than
some Unitarian ministers now receive, at least for a time, until pension
capital funds could be built up; this would constitute a monetary
disadvantage for new pensioners which some persons might construe as a
penalty. There would be no change in existing pensions.
11.
The creation of a new headquarters organization and the related
regional organization will offer problems in staffing.
12.
Though the two present organizations are basically similar in
pattern, they operate in different ways at different points and it will be
difficult to begin the operation of a new plan of organization.
13.
The patterns of present fund raising will need to be changed and the
transition will be complicated.
14.
The problem of present denominational type functions which are
legally independent may not be resolvable and confusion will result.
15.
Merger will present problems for those auxiliary national bodies
which are not presently united; it may also be that some of them may not
elect to unite.
16.
Merger will not save any money at the national level although it
likely will at the intermediate level.
POSSIBLE PLANS
FOR MERGER
Although there
are a number of ways by which merger could be effected between the two
liberal religious denominations, this chapter confines its attention to two
possibilities: 1. complete, functional merger, and 2. broadening and
enlarging the present Council of Liberal Churches. Each of these plans is
described sufficiently, though not exhaustively, together with the
advantages and disadvantages of each plan. The reader will note some
parallelism between the presentation of the first plan and the material in
Chapter XIV, since the general topic is the same in each case.
Plan 1.
Complete Functional Merger
Material under
this topic includes discussion of what complete functional merger means and
what would be involved, the highlights of a possible plan and the
advantages and disadvantages inherent in it.
What Functional
Merger Means and What Would Be Involved
Functional
merger means the complete uniting of the American Unitarian Association and
the Universalist Church of America all at one time according to a master
plan. Such a plan would involve a general time table for taking various
required actions, once the will of the churches has been registered.
Certain changes
would be required because a merged denomination would come into existence
and the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. would go out of existence. These changes
include the following, but the list is not exhaustive:
1.
Probable abandonment of both names: Unitarian and Universalist,
unless the churches should vote for some hyphenated name.
2.
Consolidation of the two present Corporations: the A.U.A. and the
U.C.A. into a new corporation for the merged denomination.
3.
The C.L.C. would cease to exist as a corporate structure.
4.
If the following bodies vote to become internal functions of the
merged denomination, their corporate structures would no longer be
necessary: L.R.Y., U.P.H., U.S.C.
5.
If there is a merger, the two women’s groups and the two men’s
groups will have to face the issue of whether to combine or not. If they
elect to continue as they now are, each would have serious problems of
relationships, loyalties, and programs.
6.
Consolidation of existing corporations will involve transfer of
funds to the new corporation; this will mean study of each fund to
determine whether any could not be transferred to a new corporation; the
same would be true for any titles to property; moreover, special court
action may be required in a number of instances.
7.
Special action in the states of New York and Massachusetts would be
required to effect a consolidated corporation; moreover, a new charter and
new by—laws would be required.
8.
The form of organization of headquarters would need to be changed.
9.
The composition of Boards and Committees would have to be changed to
fit the merged denominational structure.
10.
The two national ministerial associations would become one body.
11.
The new national delegate body would be enlarged and have a
different composition, according to whatever by—laws the merged
denomination adopts.
12.
If a regional plan of intermediate organization is adopted, the
State Conventions would need to be consolidated with the new regions and
the whole policy of funds reappraised. This does not mean that special
purpose and trust funds could be diverted to other purposes.
13.
Existing A.U.A. regional boundaries in some cases would need to he
changed to make units capable of serving the increased number of churches
and fellowships, if a regional plan is adopted.
14.
A new denominational magazine would need to be created.
15.
Some likely changes in fellowshipping rules and related practices
concerning ministers would be required.
The Highlights
of a Functional Merger
Certain
highlights emerging from a mandate resulting from the will of the churches
to establish an organic merger of the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. are discussed
next, though in very brief form.
Name of New
Denomination: It would not be
possible to select any name that would please everyone, though it is likely
that a name could and would be chosen by the majority. The choosing of a
name should he based on sound principles, which are discussed in Chapter
XIII.
Denominational
Body:
The merged denomination would require a representative, legislative
body whose delegates would come from churches, fellowships, and other
organizations in numbers and kinds prescribed by the by—laws adopted. This
body would be the principal and only national body of the denomination in
which all power and responsibility resides, it would meet at such times as
prescribed in the by—laws and in such places as determined by the Board of
Directors (Trustees) consistent with the charter of incorporation.
Plan of
Organization:
A plan of organization for a new headquarters should be based on
sound, modern principles of organization adapted for institutional
operation. These should embrace unilateral control of all headquarters
operations, avoidance of splitting responsibility and overlapping or
underlapping complementary authorities, avoidance of any dualities in
policy making or execution and the like. Good principles of organization
are illustrated in the sample chart of organization which appears in
Chapter XIV.
By—Laws:
In a democratic, delegate type organization, the bylaws have great
importance. These need to he conceived in high level, broad terms with
sufficient detail to avoid the possibility of unhappy or undesirable
situations occurring and offer sound guides for businesslike conduct of
the denomination’s affairs. The drafting of a suitable set of by—laws might
involve consideration of the best features of what exists in both present
denominations, or it might be determined to forget existing by—laws and
create a brand new set. Some suggestions for a set of by—laws appear in
Chapter XIV.
Personnel:
The number and kinds of personnel needed would be controlled to a
large extent by any by—laws and plan of organization voted. A sufficient
number of personnel should be considered to insure that the functions of
the merged denominations would be adequately manned so that advance and
progress could be assured. Who the personnel should be would be a matter
for the new Board of Directors (Trustees) and their chief executive officer
to consider and act upon. It is imperative that Unitarian and Universalists
both recognize that the issue of organic merger will depend in large
measure upon selecting personnel without regard to previous denominational
affiliation.
Finance:
The budget for the new headquarters would have to depend upon the
combined resources now available for the respective separate headquarters.
It should not require any more money than now is used by the two
collectively, but it is highly doubtful that it would require much less
than the total now spent by the two. It should be kept in mind that no plan
is worth considering that would involve the spending of any capital except
that which is expressly given to be spent for operating purposes. The
ultimate financial plan would depend upon whether or not certain elements
now independent should elect to become a part of the headquarters
operation.
Advantages and
Disadvantages of Functional Merger
Everyone
recognizes that no plan conceivable by man is perfect. While an ideal plan
relates as far as possible to all the conditions facing an institution, the
full ideal can never quite be attained.
The advantages
of this plan include:
a.
Establishing a brand new organization, a situation which offers both
existing denominations an opportunity to eliminate any weaknesses inherent
in their present plans.
b.
Affording an opportunity to create a streamlined, modern
headquarters organization.
c.
Organizing for sufficient flexibility to meet long range needs.
d.
Aligning the functions which should constitute a modern small
denomination headquarters plan of organization.
e.
Affording an opportunity to create improved working relationships
between the national offices and the intermediate organization units,
having in mind both the necessary centralization and decentralization, and
also eliminating duplication of effort at this level.
f.
Creating an opportunity to lift the sights of both denominations to
new levels of insight, initiative, and moving closer to all those ideals
for which modern liberal religion claims it stands.
The
disadvantages of this plan include the following:
a.
It involves numerous changes, some of major importance for both
denominations; these will be complicated and will require time, effort and
expense to consummate.
b.
Denominational names and identities will be altered if not
eliminated, at least at the national level.
c.
Any change towards adopting a regional plan of intermediate
organization will cause the loss of any advantages inherent in units of
state size such as Universalist Conventions.
d.
Many new alignments and relationships will be necessary, with a
parallel reduction or possible elimination of many present relationships
painstakingly built up and made effective over a long period of years.
Plan 2,
Broadening and Enlarging the Council of Liberal Churches
It will be
recalled that the basic reason for establishing the Council of Liberal
Churches was to create an organizational instrument that would not only
merge Universalism and Unitarianism but would also make it possible for
liberal religious people to come together from such groups as the Quakers,
Reformed Jews, Ethical Culture Society, and from liberal wings of the
orthodox denominations. The new organization would be Federal Union in
type and at first would have charge of only a few merged functions of the
A.U.A. and U.C.A.: education, public relations and publications. As
operation of these proved successful, other A.U.A, and U.C.A. functions
such as extension, ministry, fund raising etc., would gradually he merged.
Ultimately this would have meant that the A .U.A. and U.C.A. as operating
corporations would have nothing left to do except to administer the income
of any funds which study and rulings indicated could not be transferred to
the C.L.C.
The mode of
organization is a bit unusual in that the C .L.C. corporation has 16
regularly elected members plus the A.U.A. President and the U.C.A. General
Superintendent as ex—officio members without vote. The 16 members are
elected by the Business meetings of the A.U.A. and the U.C.A., each
selecting eight members on a rotating plan. Thus the C.L.C. while a legal
entity is in reality a captive corporation through the manner of electing
the members of the C.L.C. corporation and through the budgetary control of
the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. particularly since the C.L.C. by—laws expressly
provide that it may not engage in any fund raising activities for its own
account. Another very unusual provision in its by—laws is the statement on
termination, i.e.. that either the A.U.A. or the U.C.A. in an annual
business meeting may expressly vote the C.L.C. out of existence.
The foregoing
background material is repeated here to refresh the reader’s mind as he
considers a possible plan for broadening and enlarging the C.L.C. The
original framers of the C.L.C. gave very great energy and much time to the
task which the two delegate bodies assigned them. To what extent it was
possible for them to make a complete analysis of the problems to be
encountered and also a projection is not known. However, it is obvious
that sooner or later, the C.L.C. would become a third ‘denomination’
increasing in stature and importance as all Unitarian and Universalist
headquarters functions gradually became merged and under the aegis of the
C.L.C. If, for example, the C.L.C. had under its jurisdiction religious
education, public relations, publications, extension, and ministry, it is
obvious that the A.U.A. and the C.L.C. could continue as legal entities
with legislative bodies, having few or no actual direct operations of their
own. They would need to make policies for those activities to be carried
out through the C.L.C. Council and its staff. They would also continue to
exercise jurisdiction over whatever funds they had, and appropriate
increasing amounts of money for the annual C .L .C. budget and
correspondingly decreasing amounts for their own annual budgets. Thus
Federal Union could continue to be the guiding concept, sectarianism would
still be intact in large measure, but the whole situation would be
exceedingly awkward.
Moreover, it
seems reasonable to suppose that restiveness would increase to a serious
point as it became realized that sooner or later, in order to have a more
direct influence upon and control over the governing council of the C.L.C.,
there would be a need for establishing an overall legislative body for the
C.L.C. with delegates from churches and fellowships. If that should
eventuate, the whole situation would have circled around to where
functional merger should have been the initial concept rather than Federal
Union. The Commission charged with appraising the C.L.C. evidently
recognized much of the foregoing and recommended that the C.L.C. be
expanded no further and that the present Commission be established to look
into functional merger and/or alternatives to merger.
What This Plan
Is and What It Involves
This plan is an
enlargement of the present C.L.C. Essentially, this moans continuing with
the present merged education function and rapidly adding alt other
functions on a merged basis. It does not propose that the C.L.C. become a
service agency for several denominations in such areas as religious
education, public relations, publications and possibly additional
functions. It has already been shown that this kind of arrangement is not
wholly satisfactory to Unitarians and Universalists.
The rate of
addition is a very highly important factor since it would have much to do
with how soon both the A.U.A. and the U.C.A. become paper entitles only,
being in existence until the disposition of any funds each holds in trust
is attained. Unless this possible plan were consummated as quickly as
possible, the interim period would be featured by three competitive groups:
the A.U.A., the U.C.A. and the C.L.C. This, of course, raises the whole
question of membership in the C.L.C. Eventually, the locus of power and
responsibility would need to pass from the present A.U.A. and U.C.A.
delegate bodies to a new delegate body. Space does not permit description
of the several stages to be involved, hence attention is given only to
what appears to be the ultimate situation.
The features
that would be contained in the ultimate plan of enlarging the C.L.C. would
not be greatly unlike those found in a plan of organic merger without
reference to the C.L.C. It assumes a continuance of the Federal Union
concept insofar as any governing body below may be conceived and subject to
the national delegate body. This would mean a Board of Directors, or
Trustees or Council equally composed of Unitarians and Universalists.
Should another liberal group desire to join the C.L.C. provision would need
to be made for its representation on the governing board, provided of
course, that its member churches, societies or groups became C.L.C.
members, subscribed to all the requirements and sent official delegates to
national business meetings. In time to come, it would be hoped, should
extension of the C.L.C. take place that present sectarianism would decrease
to such an extent that the delegate body would be in a position to elect
persons to the C.L.C. governing board based on merit rather than on
adherence to any particular interpretation of liberal religion. The other
changes this plan would involve are the same as for the preceding plan,
except that there would be no loss of denominational name in the national
title since the full name of the new denomination would be Council of
Liberal Churches (Universalist—Unitarian). However, in due course, if it
became evident that other liberal groups would Join, the hyphenated names
would probably have to be dropped.
Advantages and
Disadvantages of This Plan
An enlarged
C.L.C. would have advantages and
disadvantages which are cited next.
The advantages
include:
1.
Continuance of the name of an agency which is well known in and
accepted by Universalist and Unitarian circles.
2.
The present well conducted program of religious education would have
a minimum of interruption.
3.
Operating cost over what both denominations collectively spend when
all functions are merged and under common administration and supervision
will not be increased.
4.
Duplicated costs for conducting two patterns of intermediate
organizations: Regions and Conventions should be eliminated.
5.
A united front of religious liberals would provide an opportunity to
move ahead.
The
disadvantages include:
1.
Having for a time at least, a continuance of three denominations:
A.U.A., U.C.A. and C.L.C.
2.
A governing board composed of equal representation:
this feature
offers too many opportunities for voting impasses, too much attention to
guarding sectarian “rights, privileges, etc.”, does not guarantee that
members shall be chosen on merit, and withal offers much too great an
opportunity for jockeying.
3.
A likely continuance of competitive sectarianism within the same
parent body.
4.
A serious problem of how to arrange for inclusion of and adequate
representation for other liberal religious groups who may wish to become
associated.
5.
Considerable confusion which may become attenuated during the
merging process.
6.
Difficulty in securing adequate financing.
7.
Establishing a third high level administration.
8.
Losing the advantages inherent in intermediate organization units
of state size if a regional plan of intermediate organization should he
adopted. Moreover, until the time comes when the A.U.A. and U.C.A. cease to
exist, there would be two plans of intermediate organization in effect:
Regions and State Conventions.
9.
Either a whole series of committees (one to each function to be
merged) or a body similar to a Commission would need to be at work almost
continuously until the whole task is consummated.
10.
Unless the plan of merger based on an enlarged C.L.C. were effected
at one time, there would be considerable administrative confusion. For
example, while headquarters functions or departments operate separately
for many purposes, there are numerous other matters on which they must work
in coordinated fashion on a more or less continuous basis; having three top
bodies at some critical points would more than likely create delays,
unwitting blockages and a considerable communication problem.
It is believed
that there is no point in broadening and enlarging the C.L.C. short of
placing all present internal functions under its direction. Hence there
would ultimately be no purpose in having a continuance of the present two
denominations. If a plan of merging functions and placing them under
C.L.C. could he effected all at one time, the only difference in that case
between the new C.L.C. and a functional merger would be in the governing
board. These statements are prefaced upon the continuance of a liberal
religious body whose main policy making and general direction is by a
delegate body.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
