A Statement: On the Future of This Church | Page 8

my desire that the church
which I shall serve tomorrow, may have a name which means
something in the language and thought of our time. The application of
this principle to our church is obvious. The name, Church of the
Messiah, is precious to many of us, because it awakens memories and
revives tender associations. But a name [17] is important not from the
standpoint of those who know what it means, or ought to mean, but of
those who do not know. The name of a church, like that of a business,
is an advertisement. It is a symbol, a slogan, a banner. It should tell at
once to everybody what is behind it, what it stands for; and this is
exactly what our name does not do, except to the initiate. Dr. Savage
tried to save the situation by associating with the name, Lowell's

familiar line, "some great cause, God's new Messiah." I have tried to
breathe the breath of life into the corpse, by attaching it deliberately to
our various activities--as the Messiah Forum, the Messiah Social
Service League, etc. But all in vain! Our name suggests a hope of
ancient Judaism, a period of Unitarian history, a habit of Episcopalian
nomenclature--and that is all! It should be changed, to give some
adequate expression of our ideals. The City Church, the People's
Church, the Community Church, the Church of the People, the Church
of the New Democracy, the Fellowship, the Free Fellowship, the
Fellowship of Social Idealism, the Fellowship of the Kingdom, the
Fellowship of Spiritual Democracy, the Liberal Centre, the Community
Centre,--think of what we might call ourselves, if we but had the
courage. And after all, what courage would it take, save that long since
displayed by our fathers in this church? How many of you know that
for fourteen years, this church was known simply as the Second
Congregational Unitarian Society of New York. Then in 1839, because
the name Unitarian was open to serious misconstruction, this name,
except in its strictly legal uses, was dropped, and the highly orthodox
name we now bear, was substituted. I stated at our meeting that if I
should remain as your minister, I should hope that this church might
similarly baptize itself afresh in the language of our own time, and in
the spirit of our own life!
Again, at this meeting on Monday last, I stated that a modern church
should have free pews. This statement needs no definition or argument.
The system of pew [18] rentals is an abomination, already abolished in
countless churches more orthodox than our own, and a scandal in any
church claiming to be liberal or democratic.
Lastly, I stated my desire that my church should have a non-covenanted
membership. On the side of organization, this means of course that we
make our church and society a single body, and thus abolish the present
system of two unrelated groups, the one business and the other spiritual
in character. On the side of religion, it means that we abandon the idea
of an inner group of members, who have reached some spiritual
eminence not attained by others. Of course, in our body, this
sanctification aspect of church membership has disappeared from our

apprehension. But if this is the case, why should we retain the form?
What is essential is organization and fellowship on the basis of simple
brotherhood. Here we are, comrades together, worshipping and
working to the great end of a better world. We must be bound together
in some way, for we must be an enlisted body, not a mob of unrelated
individuals. But let it be a Roll-Call to Service--a joining of the church
as of the Red Cross for the love of mankind. In spirit, our membership
is already this; but its form is not so much an embodiment of the new
democracy of the saviors as an echo of the old aristocracy of the saved.
It was with these five points that I confronted the members of this
Society last Monday evening. I stated them much as I have stated them
this morning, and then asked not that action be taken, but that sentiment
be expressed. Since that time, I have been assiduously collecting
information of what took place. Official report of action taken, of votes
passed, has been laid upon my desk. Friends have written or spoken to
me their impressions of the gathering. I have myself canvassed the
members of the Board of Trustees, and have received replies to my
questions which show such high endeavor to convey accurate
information and sound advice, quite apart from personal opinion on
most points, as does [19] abounding honor to the persons concerned.
From what has thus come to me, I deduce three facts about this meeting.
First, that the