As I continue to think out loud about covenant in liberal religious congregations, I can think of three cases where having a covenant makes a lot of sense:
(a) Congregations that can trace their institutional roots back to churches that historically had covenants as their central organizing principle. For Unitarian Universalist congregations, this probably means tracing institutional roots back to the mid-19th century or earlier, to churches of the New England Standing Order. The concept of covenant would have to have been kept alive in some form since then; e.g., the New Bedford, Mass., Unitarian church grew out of a Puritan church that had a covenant up through the 19th century, and later maintained that covenant in the way in which newcomers were allowed to join the church as full members (i.e., newcomers have always had to sign a statement stating they would uphold certain moral standards).
(b) Congregations that otherwise derive from churches of the old New England Standing Order, e.g., the Unitarian Universalist Society of Geneva, Illinois (see first post in this series for details).
(c) Congregations that were not originally Puritan, but were nevertheless initially organized around covenant as a central organizing principle. I believe some of our newest congregations were intentionally formed around covenants.
In each of these three cases, in order for covenant to remain viable as a central organizing principle, the covenant must:— be kept theologically fresh by the minister(s) or other theologically sophisticated persons; be constantly presented to new members; and be a part of the day-to-day life of the congregation. That is, in order to be viable, a covenant must be a living document.
Third in a series on covenant. Part one.
Dan, I’ve never understood the word “covenant” to mean “organizing principle.” To my simplistic way of thinking, it’s simply the promise we make to the other members of the congregation “To dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love, and to help one another.”
The problem is not the word covenant itself, but rather the failure of many UUs to understand that a covenant is a shared endeavor.
We’re covenants explicitly not part of societies organized as fellowships? Like I said, All Souls in Chicago did not recite one. Would that be their history? I’m going to ask them of course, but what’s your take Dan?
Were, not We’re…but I’m not in focus yet.
Great series Dan, especially in dialogue with the always-excellent Scott.
And Naomi — thank you for bringing God in it, albeit through the backdoor term “sacralizing.” You said what I was waiting to hear.
I’m just pondering all this in my heart — with gratitude.
…..a covenant must be a living document.
Creeds describe beliefs to my way of thinking. Belief doesn’t count for a whole lot. Beliefs too easily chucked in a culture churning through new beliefs all the time.
Covanants as rules of behavior not deep enough, but a covenant that’s lived as a path through ones life, and a covenant that goes beyond individuals that brings an institution to life, makes sense to me. It’s exactly how our covenant in Geneva works and has endured.
UU beliefs change. They change a lot. But our practice pretty consistent. The practice, how we’ve lived it, best stated in a covenant, and not a creed or manifesto, or whatever one would call it.
Victor @ 1 — You’re right, a covenant per se need not be an organizing principle. However, in the past 20 years the whole idea behind covenant in UU congregations has been that it would serve as an organizing principle, replacing e.g. creed or doctrine as that around which we organize ourselves.
Bill @ 2 — You write: “Were covenants explicitly not part of societies organized as fellowships?”
There was not much talk about covenant in UU circles until say 20 years ago, when Alice Blair Wesley and others began to talk about covenant as an organizing principle for UU congregations.
Don’t think that a UU covenant can easily take the place of a single organizing creed – e.g., the divinity of Christ – from which everything else derives its value. Most people (I would guess the majority in UU congregations) don’t understand this concept of covenant, and trying to explain it only would complicate matters. (Would we need separate covenants for people who identify as pagans, humanists, Christians, etc.?)
Here’s a radical thought… perhaps the work of creating a covenant is an individual endeavor? Trying to find a “one size fits all” covenant for a congregation might be self-defeating, and actually undermine the value one might derive from developing a personal covenant.
Victor @ 7 — You write: “Most people (I would guess the majority in UU congregations) don’t understand this concept of covenant, and trying to explain it only would complicate matters. (Would we need separate covenants for people who identify as pagans, humanists, Christians, etc.?)”
This adds to my reasons why covenant won’t work. Thank you, nicely put.
As for personal covenants, as I understand covenant, there is no such thing as a personal covenant; a covenant by definition involves a community of people.
Dan,
A personal covenant would be a promise by an individual member of the congregation to the other members of the congregation. Community is still very much involved, but the covenantal words would come from the individual making the promise.
The covenant that I would write would be different than the one you would write – because we different people, and my truth may not be exactly the same as yours. But I can covenant to share my truth with you (as soon as I figure out what it is), and to help you in your search for truth. Isn’t this the essence of Unitarian Universalism, its basic “organizing principle”?
I read this series after reading your series on associationalism, and heard these words in that context: “in order for covenant to remain viable as a central organizing principle, the covenant must:— be kept theologically fresh by the minister(s) or other theologically sophisticated persons.”
In the other series you wrote, “consensus is too easily manipulated by powerful articulate educated moneyed people.” I wondered if a covenant mediated by the minister and/or other theologically sophisticated persons would face the same danger.