u. . u... .‘x v... ‘I ”in“, r ., ,. 33..." ~' ‘r )"-.‘I. XI'>.4.. \ |||||\Il|||IllllllUHlHlllHl\llllllHlHl‘lHlllllilmlml 3 1293 010264 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Unitarian Universalist Views On Issues In Human Sexuality presented by Paul H. Landen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Arts & Letters , M/Q; Major professor Datei/L: a/W{ [656] 2 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MlRfixiW ifiioi‘aiggen State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 0v L019” flan 21996 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution WNMMS-pfi UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALIST VIEWS ON ISSUES IN HUMAN SEXUALITY BY Paul H. Landen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Arts and Letters 1992 ABSTRACT UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIS‘I‘ VIEWS ON ISSUES IN HUMAN SEXUALITY BY Paul H. Landen Unitarian Universalism holds a unique place as one of the most liberal groups in the.kmerican Religious Community. Their beliefs are heavily influenced by a deep commitment to individual freedom and social justice. Their commitment to social change is evident in the Church’s strong support of women’s issues and their response to sexual issues. This study examines the response of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) to the issues of abortion, lesbian-gay concerns, and AIDS and the Church’s commitment to women’s issues. Extensive collection and review of historical documents was enhanced by interviews with key people in the UUA. While the Church has certainly been on the cutting edge of abortion rights and lesbian-gay concerns, the process has not been easy. There have been those who have disagreed with the prevailing views, and there has been a greater degree of unanimity on the pro-choice stance on abortion, than on the issue of lesbian-gay rights. The examination of abortion, an outgrowth of the UUA's commitment to women's issues, covers several areas: 1) Resolutions and policies, as well as Religious Education materials; 2) The words and actions of clergy; 3) leadership by the laity; and 4) The writings of theologians within the Church. These areas combine for a comprehensive View of the abortion issue from a U—U perspective. There are several aspects,of‘the:movement for lesbian-gay rights within the UUA. The first is the early history of the lesbian-gay movement within the Church. Second, a look at the development of the Office of Lesbian—Gay Concerns and Unitarian Universalists for Lesbian-Gay Concerns illustrates the various views that have been taken on lesbian-gay issues. Services of Union, placement of lesbian and gay clergy, and the “Welcoming Congregation," are important activities of the movement today. The issues illustrate a basic U-U commitment to progressive action and ideas. Within that basic commitment, however, there is often disagreement on specific issues. That disagreement is also part of the U-U tradition. Copyright by Paul Harry Landen 1992 For the Teachers and Professors Who Gave Me the love of Learning: Mr. Terry Kureth Mr. Daniel J. Smith Ms. Datia Tracin Ms. Cheryl Jennings Dr. Ronald Dorr Dr. Dolores Borland Dr. John Greene Dr. Paul Muller-Ortega Dr. Mary Schenider Dr. Anneliese Sinnott Rev. Dr. Anthony Kosnik ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Among all who have helped with this study, the place of honor is reserved for Professor Peter Marabell, the study’s advisor, 'who has been invaluable in jproviding' guidance, support, and editorial assistance. Without his concern, commitment, and "mentoring", this dissertation would not have been completed. My thanks also go to my previous advisor Prof. Linda Beth Tiedje, who helped.me start in the right direction. My other committee members, Professors Elaine Donelson, Fred Graham, and Joyce Ladenson also provided valuable assistance and support. I am indebted to the entire committee. I am also appreciative of Prof. Robert Anderson for giving me the opportunity to enter the program. My appreciation goes to all at the UUA, and U-U’s across the country, who gave of their time and experience by granting me interviews and providing me with information. My friends and family have been very supportive throughout my time in school. My love and appreciation to: My Parents Charles and.Freda Landen; my sisters and their spouses -- Nancy and Glenn Hoffrichter, Barbara and Steven Lebow, Pat Bolian and Jan Van Voorhis; and my nieces and nephew -- Aimee and.G1en Bolian and.Abby and Lauren Lebow: my Grandmother June vi Landen; my Aunt Margaret Landen for her editorial assistance; nw'cousins‘Mary Berger and.Gate Ditkoff for their support; and to my friends Dawn Hambly, Jeff Miller, Josie Csete, and Charles Marquardt. Special thanks to my friend Ronald Nerio who has been my sounding board and critic. I am indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Jes Asmussen Jr., Chairperson of the Department of Electrical Engineering, for his support, and for all of the conversations we’ve shared. My thanks also to the faculty and staff of the Department of Electrical Engineering for their support, and for keeping me laughing. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONO..0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00......O. 1 Religious Education. . . . . ...... . ...... . ............ 12 Comments On The Study.................. ...... ..... 17 Women’s Issues ....... . ............................ 20 The Issues......................... ....... ........ 32 Endnotes.... ........... . ................ . ........ . 36 2.ABORTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0...O 41 Action On The Denominational Level. ...... . ........ 41 Abortion- Religious Education..................... 45 Response Of Clergy To.Abortion.................... 47 Response And Action By The Laity.... ....... ....... 53 Unitarian‘Universalist Theologians On Abortion.... 66 The Future Of The Abortion Issue.................. 81 Endnotes......................... ................. 84 3. LESBIAN AND GAY ISSUES .............. . ............... 90 Early History...0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO 00000 90 The Office Of Lesbian-Gay Concerns And Unitarian Universalists For Lesbian Gay Concerns ..... .... 105 ReligiousEducation............................... 128 Recent Developments. . . ............... . ............ 133 Conclusion............ .......... . ............ .....163 Endnotes............. ....... . .......... . ........ ..168 4.AIDS..... ..................................... . ..... 178 Endnotes............. ............................ 189 5.CONCLUSION... .............. . ........................ 191 Endnotes ............... .... ............... .......205 APPENDICES A” RESOLUTIONS ON ABORTION............................. 207 viii B. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMON VISION PLANNING COMMITTEE.............. ......... . ................ 214 C. GUIDELINES FOR A WELCOMING CONGREGATION. ............ 221 LIST OF REFERENCES....... ....... . ........ . ........... 226 ix INTRODUCTION On May 11, 1961 the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in Nerth America (UUA) was formed. This date marked.the:merger of two smaller denominations, the‘Unitarians and Universalists, which had been operating in the United States since the Colonial period. Both the Unitarians and Universalists grew out of theological reaction against beliefs held by much of Christianity. Unitarianism, which "represented a progressive liberalization of the Puritan Calvinist congregationalism,"1 stressed the unity of God, and differed with the doctrine of the trinity because it emphasized the humanity of Jesus and his teachings, more than his divinity. The first church known to use the name Unitarian was founded in 1638 in Transylvania. In England during the 17th and 18th centuries a form of Unitarianism, though outcast, began growing. By the beginning of the 19th century, 20 churches calling themselves Unitarian had been established.in.England. The first Unitarian Church in the United States was established by Joseph Priestly, discoverer of Oxygen and a Unitarian minister. Priestly fled England after enduring much harassment for his religious Views, and established a Unitarian Church in Philadelphia in 1794.2 Early Unitarianism in America was influenced by such hist Thou the "511] scr phe God Gre the the brc mix Mas Am: pr. ag. SP Ch Di in 11' 2 historical figures as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine.3 The spokesperson for Unitarianism in the 19th century was the Rev. William Ellery Charming. His theology was one of "supernatural rationalism." Channing believed in the scriptures, but examined scripture, and all religious phenomena "in the light of reason."4 The early Universalists believed in a loving, benevolent God who offered universal salvation. Universalism developed in Great Britain from a Methodist background.5 In England in 1759, Universalist John Relly published Union "which denied the Calvinistic doctrine of salvation for the few and claimed that all would be saved."6 John Murray, a follower of Relly brought Universalism to the U.S. in 1779. Murray became minister of the Independent Christian Church of Gloucester, Massachusetts, which became the first Universalist Church in America. In 1805, Hosea Ballou, Universalism's greatest proponent published Treatise on Atonement, which argued against the trinity and for a positive view of human nature.7 The two 18th century churches are characterized by Spencer Lavan, Dean of Meadville—Lombard U—U Seminary in Chicago, and George Huntston Williams, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard University: "Both churches emerged indirectly from the Continental and English Radical Reformations of the sixteenth century, but particularly from liberalizing' trends in. English. Presbyterian. and Scottish nonc orga each and orge libe the "Vii and of: refi eng cul inv Uni C0111 tOg Uni Whi Chl the 10( 3 nonconformist religious communities. Both churches were organized around congregational polity, according to which each congregation was responsible for calling its own minister and functioned without control by bishops or national organizations."8 The Unitarians and Universalists were among the most liberal religious groups of the day. Both movements brought to the religious community an openness to any question: "virtually every aspect of religion was fair game for doubt and debate."9 Both movements also became linked with issues of social justice such as slavery, women’s rights, and social reform. Involved Unitarians and Universalists included Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, and Dorthea Dix. Both churches also engaged in outreach to the poor and the development of many cultural and educational institutions. Unitarians were very involved in the development of Harvard College, and Universalists in the founding of Tufts University. It was the common link between religious tolerance and religious questioning that brought the churches closer and closer together until their eventual merger.1O Both Universalism and Unitarianism were born out of religious protest —— a sentiment which continues to this day. The Unitarians and Universalists were never large Churches. In 1850 the Universalists had 529 congregations, and the Unitarians 246. In 1900, the Universalists had grown to 1000 congregations with about 50,000 members, and the Unitar. howeve: Univer: congre. increa: 100,00 congre. denomi: and we religi T diffic Operat cOngre functi educat Church 23 dis' Church J Udy MI 4 Unitarians had grown to 455 congregations. By the 1950’s, however, both churches had shrunk considerably —— the Universalists to 300 congregations, and the Unitarians to 357 congregations. Growth in the South and West in the 50’s increased the numbers of Unitarians considerably, to about 100,000 by 1958.11 Today the UUA is made up of 1020 congregations, with a membership of 147,250.” The denomination would be characterized as white, middle-class, and well educated. It is also one of few non-fundamentalist religious groups still growing. Trying to define the Unitarian Universalists is a very difficult task. U-U’s, like Congregationalists and Baptists operate with a congregational polity, meaning that every congregation is autonomous. The UUA serves a coordinating function, providing support and services such as religious education materials and ministerial settlement, to the churches. For administrative purposes, the UUA is divided into 23 districts. Because of the congregational nature of the U—U church, lay people play a particularly central role. The Rev. Judy Meyer, Vice—President for Program: "When looking at our movement I think it’s important to have some sensitivity to the different shape that leadership takes when it’s exercised by lay people and ministers, and not to underestimate the strength and the vision of the lay leadership."13 Like other religious groups with congregational polity the UUA makes policy through the use of General Assemblies. Eaci thrc res< Some P901 or : bel: deve autl one bel: UUA tot.- pre. 3 d0 the Whi the 5 Each year representatives of the churches and fellowships throughout the country gather to debate issues and pass resolutions. The impact of resolutions is a topic for debate. Some people believe the resolutions are meaningless. Other people:believe.they are excellent tools for creating publicity or forcing the denomination to address an issue. Judy Meyer believes "the resolutions are a chronology of UU support for developments (on issues)."14 Since there is no central authority in the UUA, resolutions of the General Assembly are one of the few ways in which insight can be gained into U-U beliefs on a national level. Bill Schulz, President of the UUA, discussing the General Assembly resolutions: "while not totally reflective of the grass roots, they do reflect the predominance of views."15 In the 1984 and 1985 General Assemblies the UUA updated a document entitled "Principles and Purposes," the section of the UUA by-laws that attempts to define what U—U’s believe. While neither doctrinal or dogmatic, the Principles reflect the Views of a majority of U-U’s: We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affimm and promote * The inherent worth and dignity of every person; * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations: * Acceptance: of’ one another' and. encouragement ‘to spiritual growth in our congregations; * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; * The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all; Th: Vil be. Me: 110. 6 * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part; The living tradition which we share draws from many sources: * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life; * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which Challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion and the transforming power of love; * Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life; * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves; * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit. Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.16 The emphasis on freedom, reason, and the diversity of viewpoints in the Principles is very representative of U-U beliefs. In "Meet the Unitarian Universalists," the Rev. Jack Mendelsohn, a prominent U-U Ininister, examines Unitarian- Universalist beliefs: Those who differ with us argue that we must be directed by infallible religious guides, or else our frailties will corrupt and destroy us. But when we begin to examine closely the ‘infallible' religious guides, what do we discover? The church which claims authority to dictate beliefs is a human institution, and its ‘final truths' are no more than the conclusions arrived at by earlier human leaders. The same statement is true of the Bible. It was written by mortals. No creed exists that was not originally composed by human beings like ourselves. Churches, Bibles and creeds are the creations of those who once exercised their freedom to create. Is there any reason why we should expect 7 to do less? Thus the distinctive characteristic of the Unitarian Universalist is our insistence that we will not bind our present and future in religion to the tutelage of the past. We will attempt to learn all that the past can teach us, but we will do our own thinking about current matters of faith and belief.17 Mendelsohn describes U—U’s as being based on guiding principles, not doctrines. There are no creeds —— instead reason, experience, and conscience guide each individual to find her/his own truth: “The most fundamental of all our principles, then, is individual freedom of religious belief -- the principle of the free mind."18 Another central principle is the belief that each person is responsible for her or his own actions. Reason and the scientific method are central to an ethical sense of responsibility: "Unitarian Universalism, then, is an ethical rather than a doctrinal religion, with individual freedom as its method and reason as its guide."19 Also inherent in Unitarian—Universalism is the belief that truth is relative and multi—faceted. Accordingly, there is tremendous diversity within a U-U church. There can be Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Humanists, and Atheists all worshipping together, sharing one another’s spiritual journeys. The belief in individual freedom is a hallmark of Unitarian Universalism. It is the foundation of the denomination’s views on both abortion and lesbian—gay issues. In 1974 Hugo Hollerorth, editor of many of the religious education programs for the UUA, tried to define Unitarian Universalism in Relating to Our World, a document exploring 8 the philosophy of religious education. He believed that there were a series of "resources" which both defined and enabled Unitarian Universalism. The first of these resources was the power of the human mind. He believed that humans used their minds to understand the world that surrounds them in a continuing search to know and comprehend, and that this search was an essential part of Unitarian Universalism.20 The second resource identified by Hollerorth was "creative interaction with oneself, with other human beings, and with nature."21 Insight develops when people are able to interact with nature, one another, and in quiet contemplation within one’s self. This insight or discernment was essential to Unitarian Universalism. A third resource dealt with human interaction and Unitarian Universalism’s emphasis on life-enhancing relationships based in freedom. Love, honesty, and adventurousness were essential elements: "In the experience of Unitarian Universalists, each of these, as a way of being with each other, enhances the possibility of human beings creating a fulfilling orientation to the world. Unitarian Universalism affirms, as a resource in the human situation, the potentiality of human beings to be with each other in a relationship of freedom, love, sensitivity, honesty, independence, and adventurousness."22 The fourth resource was "the full range of human knowledge, including the heritage of all the world’s 9 religions, as well as knowledge from the secular fields of human inquiry."23 U—U’s did not limit their knowledge to the religious. All knowledge and all ways of knowing were embraced. The fifth resource, the diversity of thought among iumans, was closely related because diversity was not heresy. Instead it was the base of Unitarian Universalism: "It is the :onviction of Unitarian Universalists that through lisagreement —- articulated, shared and openly explored -- the ossibility of creating a fulfilling orientation to the world s heightened."“ The U—U commitment to individual freedom is ident throughout Hollerorth’s resources. For Hollerorth the five resources were "the process used y Unitarian Universalists to orient themselves, in a life— 1hancing way, to a power—filled world which affect them as itellectual, moral, sentient, aesthetic, and mortal beings. :is into a community of people who have committed themselves > this process that Unitarian Universalists invite the oples of the earth."25 Eugene (Gene) Navias, Director of Religious Education at e UUA agreed with much of Hollerorth's description. He lieved, however, that today we would need to broaden the {s of knowing beyond the mind, which Hollerorth tended to )hasize. Sense and intuition should be added to Hollerorth’s sources. Navias also believed, like Hollerorth, that the :uralness of diversity is an essential aspect of Unitarian 10 Universalism. There’s not one way of being; each person has the ability to find her/his own way.“ There are several other characteristics of the Unitarian niversalist Church that make it unique. It is a church with any members who have left other religious organizations. ccording to Judy Meyer, Vice-President for Program, this has n effect on the church: "People usually have a powerful egative experience within their church of origin or religion f origin before they come to us. A lot of that negative xperience can be related to women’s issues, reproductive ights, AIDS, gay/lesbian...the opportunities are almost ndless to be offended by what Orthodoxy has to say, and eople are. They often feel as if, to be in organized religion s to hold those dehumanizing views, and then they discover, sually accidentally, that Unitarian Universalism does not >ld those dehumanizing views and it totally reshapes and eorients them to organized religion. I think that’s a very ’werful process of conversion. Those people have a lot to say nus about where we should go."27 U—U Women’s Federation President Phyllis Rickter saw U- s as rejecting the notion of the minister as father: "that ole image -- there’s something to do with that being changed cause families aren’t the same as they were."28 U-U eologian Betty Hoskins believed that churches don’t look at amselves in the same way as they did in the past. There had an a shift in the 60’s, she argued, from the male minister 11 pronouncing as a caring father to the minister as a confused person.thinking out loud. U-U churches "were in agony over the turmoil" in the 60’s. She believed that now people in U-U churches don’t want to be told anymore -- people want an emotional experience.”’This rejection of minister as father figure would be inevitable since the U—U's embrace a feminist consciousness. The Rev. Robert (Bob) Wheatley, Director of the Office of Lesbian Gay Concerns from 1977 — 1986, believed strongly in the freedom of thought in the UUA, but believed it also had its drawbacks. He argued that U-U’s had no theology to react to, and that theology is needed to have activity: "When other :hurches go against their theology they are dealing in human issues. Women have to be free. Gays can’t be oppressed. You :hallenge the theology and the doctrine directly. We don't Lave that...We haven't learned to articulate the need for iscipline. We are intellectuals but we are isolates, we’re ot engaged in a common discipline with each other."30 He elieved that part of the reason U—U’s lacked a theology was 1e tremendous freedom: "There’s so much freedom that language [S not been found to express what we believe."31 Dueeto the strong commitment.of‘Unitarian Universalism to eedom, individual conscience, and progressive social action, d because of the lack of dogma and creed, U-U’s are netimes seen by others as not believing in, or standing for, 'thing. That is not the case. The commitment to freedom, and 12 ack of dogma, is as clear and strong as other religious oup’s commitment to their beliefs. In a sense the U-U’s have an image or an intellectual eal to live up to. Their commitment to progressive action is strong that some may support an ideal such as lesbian—gay ghts, because it is "the progressive thing to do." At the me time, they may not be ready to accept the reality of [dividual gay or lesbian lives. LIGIOUS EDUCATION The Religious Education materials of the UUA make atements about what the Church believes. Bob Wheatley: "The ication kits are statements of theology. They are as close U-U statements as you can get."32 Unitarian Universalist igious Education has a different focus than the materials many other churches. The child is the focus of the program, scripture or catechism. R.E. in many traditional churches ches children about salvation, where U-U Religious cation is "founded on the conviction that human nature, er than alienating us from God, actually binds us to the erse and all that sustains it....We believe that a child’s 'gion. grows out of normal experience. Religion is not thing to be ‘given’ to a child, but something to be ured and encouraged in a child’s unfolding life."33 ti. 0b to th "T be we tr th. {in di: Cre ant 13 William Ellery Channing, 19th century Unitarian minister nd scholar characterized U-U Religious Education: "The great d in religious instruction...is not to stamp our minds resistibly on the young, but to stir up their own; not to ke them see with our eyes, but to look inquiringly and eadily with their own; not to impose religion upon them in e form of arbitrary rules, which rest on no foundation but I own word and will, but to awaken the conscience, the moral scernment, so that they may discern and approve for emselves what is everlastingly right and good."34 Hugo Hollerorth, in Relating to Our World described three 'ectives of the Religious Education program. The first was help children understand the powers within themselves, and >se powers that have an impact from the outside world: iese include powers with which they are endowed as human .ngs, such.as biological needs and psychological desires, as l as those powers in the form of cultural expectations, ditions and evolutionary inheritances which impinge upon m as they move about the world and interact with it."35 The second objective was to help children understand the ess that was U-U religion: "This includes helping them over and become skilled in the use of the human mind; tive interaction with themselves, with other human beings, with nature; being with people in a relationship of dom, love, sensitivity, honesty, independence, and yc we pr se th C01 Se: bra Re: eh PM PM be he: l4 dventurousness; the employment of the full range of human nowledge; and the use of diversity of thought."36 The third objective was to bring the first two together nd help the children to understand how they were affected by he world, and how they could use their own skills to create eaning from existence.37 The UUA implemented this philosophy of Religious ucation through a series of programs or kits that addressed rious issues. A majority of these programs were designed for uths, but some, such as the program on feminist theology, are designed for adults. Among the issues addressed in the ograms were sexuality, homosexuality, feminist theology, xual abuse, and AIDS. The same commitment to freedom evident roughout the UUA, undergirds the Religious Education ogram. One of the most important programs was About Your (uality, initiated in 1967—1968. The churches around the ntry felt there was a serious need for a program about uality for high school aged youths. A team was assembled to instorm and create the program. Gene Navias, Director of igious Education, described the process as being 'very ional. deryck calderwood(sic), who ended up authoring the ram, was involved directly with the UUA in the planning ess. The program, according to Gene Navias, turned out to very pioneering." A thorough field test was done and the icipants were found to be very responsive. The UUA also at1 AS: 15 d programs to inform parents. The original version came out out 1970. Gene Navias: "The response was excellent. A very gh percentage but not all of our churches chose to use ."m A thorough 16—18 hour (the most thorough ever Veloped by the UUA) training was provided on how to :ilitate the program, and a trainer was set up in each U-U trict. At first the UUA found that parents weren’t prepared the materials in the program, so an introduction was eloped. The program went on to be used widely in U—U rches and was revised in 1983. An AIDS packet was added in 9. The program was based on a four step model: Initiation, re the topic was introduced; Interaction, where :icipants explored what they already knew and felt about topic; Investigation, where further information was ored; and Integration, where participants internalized had been learned and decided how to act on it. The am addressed a variety of issues including sexual ior, homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestism, and trans— lity. The program was so controversial in its approach the State of Wisconsin tried to have it banned from use. am (Bill) Schulz, President of the UUA: "The publication t was so controversial...In fact in Wisconsin the public ney tried to prevent the usage of the kit. The 'ation was in a court battle over there.“” U1 ax ir. DI si 31.1 Vi th: De] Ge} evj den 16 Gene Navias addressed the world View expressed by the programs. He stated that no one within the UUA is in the same place, that people are at various theological points. He believed the UUA is even more diverse now than it was when the programs came out. He believed, however, that there were certain widely held principles. The "Principles and Purposes" of the UUA came to serve as a vision statement of the way U— U’s believe in interacting with the world. The R.E. programs are now connected with the Principles, and the connections are in the curriculum leader’s guides provided with each )rogram.“0 Navias also believed that R.E. programs have a Lignificant effect on the denomination: "R.E. can either upport the status quo or challenge it by sounding a new ision.""1 One way in which it can support the status quo is hrough silence -— by not raising issues. Accordingly the R.E. apartment finds itself doing education for social justice. ne Navias: "Religious Education and social justice are extricably intertwined."42 The publication of the Invisible nority program on homosexuality in 1972, and the inclusion same—sex lovemaking in About Your Sexuality in 1970, are idence of the R.E. Department’s education of the nomination and its planting the seeds of social change. de ah ha- 17 MMENTS ON THE STUDY Much has been written about religious views of sexuality. ese works have varied by tradition and approach. From the man Catholic perspective, works such as Human Sexuality: New rections in American Catholic Thought,43 the report of the tholic Theological Society edited by Fr. Anthony Kosnik, and 3 works of Charles Curran have had a major impact because of air careful consideration of such issues as abortion and nosexuality, despite disagreeing with the Church’s official sitions. Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate by :ricia Beattie Jung and Thomas A. Shannon, explored the actrum of Views on the issue.44 Likewise, The Vatican and losexuality by Jeannine Gramack and Pat Furey, explored the [plexities of Roman Catholic views on homosexuality.45 From the Protestant perspective, many general and ominationally specific works have explored both abortion homosexuality. From fundamentalist to liberal, both issues 2 been the focus of major attention. From a fundamentalist :pective, a number of works have been written opposing both tsexuality and abortion, including The Anita Bryant Story: Survival of Our' Nation’s Families and. the Threat of tant Homosexuality,“ and Homosexuality: Legitimate, rnate Deathstyle by Dick Hafer.47 Works opposed to :ion include: The Slaughter of the Innocent by David A. 18 e1,48 Operation Rescue by Randall Terry,"9 and If__I .ld Die Before I Wake... by Jerry Falwell.50 During the last five years a new approach has been tried writers condemning homosexuality and abortion. Works of :nce fiction have opposed both issues. In This Present :ness, and Piercing the Darkness,52 both by Frank :tti, and Angelwalk: A Modern Fable,53 by Roger Elwood, 'acters possessed by Satan or by demons, are all gay men. illy: the novel (sic), also by Peretti, a woman is haunted he grave-marker of her aborted fetus.54 There have also been works written by gay and lesbian amentalist Christians who accept their sexual orientation. xample of this is a series of books written by Dr. Paul son in the early 80’s: Gays and the New Right: A Debate 5 t Homosexuality,5 Quotations from Chairman Falwell,56 ;ays and Fundamentalism.57 There have been a rummer of other books written in >rt of lesbian—gay rights from a religious perspective. A xamples include: Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?: Another tian View by Scanzoni and Mollenkott,S8 Come Home: iming Spirituality and Community as Gav Men and Lesbians ris Glaser,59 and Our God Too, the biography of Troy founder of the predominately lesbian and gay olitan Community Church.60 Christianityrr Social nce and Homosexualit , by John Boswell, which explores pa is 19 1e C0 1e se ha th pei ha: Uh: 1e: foj Ext 9h} 19 :titudes about homosexuality throughout the history of the lurch, won the 1981 American Book Award for History.61 There have also been several books which addressed the sue of abortion from a "pro—choice" perspective. Our Right Choose, by Beverly' Wildung’ Harrison, stands out as a rticularly powerful feminist, religious analysis of the sue.62 It would be inappropriate to study progressive approaches issues of sexuality, whether abortion or lesbian-gay sues, without examining the contributions of the Unitarian iversalists (U-U’s). U-U’s addressed the abortion issue in 53, many years before most other religious groups. On ;bian-gay issues, U—U’s have an Office of Lesbian and Gay Icerns, passed resolutions supporting the settlement of bian and gay clergy, and sanctioned the performing of same— Services of Holy Union. The Unitarian Universalist Church been on the cutting edge of sexual issues. Despite all has been written about these issues from a religious pective, the development of the U—U views on these issues not been addressed. It is a history worthy of exploration. This study examines the response of the Unitarian ersalist Association (UUA) to the issues of abortion, ian and gay issues, and AIDS. These issues are examined in wing a consideration of the role of women in the UUA. sive collection and review of historical documents was ced with interviews of key people within the UUA. The resu cutt concl thos clear pro-e gaY 1 WOMEI issue numbe membe Gener a won Michi UniVe Alcot Doroti Ward Aurel: and mc 1942’ and Me 20 results show that while the UUA has certainly been on the utting edge of issues such as abortion and lesbian-gay oncerns, the process has not been easy, and there have been hose who have disagreed with the prevailing views. It is also lear that there has been.a greater degree of unanimity on the ro-choice stance on abortion, than on the issue of lesbian- ay rights. OMEN’S ISSUES Unitarian Universalism is very proud of its record on ssues related to women. Both.the Unitarians and'Universalists imbered many of this country’s fore-mothers among their ambership. The St. Lawrence Association of the Universalist :neral Convention was the first ecclesiastical body to ordain woman in this country -- Olympia Brown of Prairie Ronde, chigan, in 1863.63 Many of the women involved in the Unitarian and iversalist churches were known nationally: Louisa May :ott, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Emily Dickinson, :othea Dix, Margaret Fuller, Florence Nightingale, Julia d Howe, Beatrix Potter, and Lucy Stone. Others such as elia Henry Reinhardt, an early President of Mills College moderator of the American Unitarian Association from 1940- , Emily Jennings Stowe, Canada’s first woman physician, Maria Mitchell, 19th century astronomer and advocate for W( ahl Se] nu] 21 omen in academia, also had a tremendous impact on the world round them.64 In 1988, in order to recognize these early Unitarian and iversalist women, the Rev. Dorothy May Emerson founded the men’s History Publication Project under the co—sponsorship the U—U Women’s Federation and the First Parish U-U of tertown, Massachusetts. In 1990 the project changed its name the Unitarian Universalist Women’s Heritage Society. The >ciety is attempting to "recover and publish writings by .rly Universalist and Unitarian women in history, to promote understanding of the importance of liberal religion in the yes of women, to engage congregations in the preservation d publication of their women’s histories, to foster ication about Unitarian Universalist women in theological 10018 and universities, to stimulate research about liberal Ligious women."65 The role of women in the U-U church has certainly not n limited to the historical. A July, 1984 article in The hin ton Times —— "Women Reshaping Unitarian Church," lored the role of women in the Church. The article pointed that the women’s movement in the Church had been onsible for the effort to update the "Principles and oses of the UUA," resulting in "eliminating ‘patriarchal exclusive language’ from its statement of faith. In this e, (the UUA) is at the forefront of such efforts in rous other denominations."66 The article went on to desc: mini: for den01 Chur< are i and ] one relig withc move this. UniVe femin few r has s. the 01 time Women Where mainst became The n.- 22 escribe how the UUA had the highest percentage of women inisters of any denomination, and how women were responsible or ending the decline in membership experienced by the nomination in the 1970’s.“ Judy Meyer, Vice-President for Program, believed the U-U urch to be the best alternative for feminist women: "There e feminists who believe they can reappropriate the Scripture d live and be in a scripturally based religion but I am not e of them. I think Unitarian Universalism is the only ligious community that offers a sense of that tradition thout having to be held in any creedal sense, being able to ve beyond it. I think women should be very attracted to is."‘58 The individual freedom inherent in Unitarian- iversalism supports feminist women who want to explore 1inist approaches to religion and spirituality in a way that 7 religious groups do. Phyllis Rickter, President of the U-U Women’s Federation, seen a significant shift in the participation of women in Church: "From the Federation's point of View, up until the of the great anger {1969} we were the organization for n. There were over 500 affiliations in churches. . .this was e our UU women acted out their lives.. ..they were the stay of the church."69 As women entered the world, and .me ministers and Church Presidents, women’s groups shrunk. Part of this shift grew out of the chaos of the 1960’s. wave of feminism created an interesting situation for 0: Co th re 23 en in the U-U’ churches as well as for' the churches mselves. Theologian Dr. Betty Hoskins: "My experience was tly of turmoil. Churches barely knew who was going to get orced the next week or who was going to have an rtion...it was also the era when people started to choose to have an abortion, but to keep the child. That was quite tling."7° The 1970’s also proved to be an interesting era for U—U n..A 1977 article in the UU World described how many U-U’s 2 involved in the fight for the E.R.A. UUA staffers, ,uding Arlie Scott, Director of the Office of Lesbian and Concerns, were involved with both the National nization of Women and the Religious Committee for the A.’s efforts in support of ratification. Social Action 'ttees of churches across the country participated in the . effort, and the General Assembly passed resolutions on .R.A.71 In 1977 the General Assembly unanimously passed a ution on "Women and Religion": WHEREAS, a principle of the Unitarian Universalist association is to ‘affirm, defend, and promote the supreme 'worth. and. dignity' of every 'human ersonality, and the use of the democratic method 'n human relationships,’ and EREAS, great strides have been taken to affirm his principle within our denomination; and EREAS, some models of human.relationships arising rom religious myths, historical materials, and ther teachings still create and perpetuate ttitudes that cause women everywhere to be verlooked and undervalued; and Mende: laugh, 24 WHEREAS, children, youth, and adults internalize and act on these cultural models, thereby tending to limit their sense of self-worth and dignity; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the 1977 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist association calls upon all Unitarian Universalists to examine carefully their own religious beliefs and the extent to which these beliefs influence sex-role stereotypes within their own families; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the General Assembly urges the Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association to encourage the Unitarian Universalist .Association..administrativew officers and staff, the religious leaders within societies, the‘Unitarian'Universalist theological schools, the directors of related organizations, and the planners of seminars and conferences to make every effort to: (a) put ‘traditional assumptions and language in perspective and (b) avoid sexist assumptions and language in the future. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the General Assembly urges the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association to send copies of this resolution to other denominations examining sexism inherent in religious literature and institutions and to the International Association of Liberal Religious Women and the IARF; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the General Assembly requests the Unitarian Universalist Association (a) to join with those who are encouraging others in the society to examine the relationship between religious and cultural attitudes toward women, and (b) to send a representative and.resource'materials to associations appropriate to furthering the above goals; and E IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the General Assembly equests the President of the UUA to report nnually on progress in implementing this n a paper prepared for the 1977 General Assembly, Jack sohn supported the resolution. He argued that Changing ge was not enough -- that the myth that underlies rl er. UP Re ac CO Pl" pr< res 25 igion needed to be examined by the UUA: "Until underlying hs are identified, understood, exorcised and reprocessed, L liberation will not come....Resolution alone will not :cise the sexist myths that envelop our lives and religious :itutions. The theological journey ‘Beyond God and Father’ ougher than many Unitarian Universalists, female and male, Crtably embrace. The Women and Religion resolution would us into deeper waters, ecumenical and secular. It calls our denominational leadership to lead, religiously. It urages all of us to be spiritually transformed.“3 In 1980, the General Assembly of the UUA passed a follow resolution: "Implementation of Women and Religion .ution." The resolution called upon the UUA to provide 'ities and materials for use by congregations in 'onting their sexist nature and heritage.74 Two specific ams grew out of the two resolutions. The first was Qakgg he Queen Of Heaven, a ten week seminar for adults on 'st "thealogy" ("thea" is Greek for Goddess). The second m was Cleansing Our Temple, an assessment and packet of ces to help congregations address sexism. akes For The Queen Of Heaven is a program developed for partment of Religious Education of the UUA, by Shirley nck, focusing on feminist "thealogy." The program, d to be done in ten sessions, explores women’s us history through a feminist lens. Issues around the nation and domination of women in Judaism and at Fe in en na re be an in 9X Wi sy. fa] wh. ma: 26 istianity are explored, as well as the reclaiming of strong torical women and female images. Ranck also goes well ond the Judeo-Christian tradition and looks at Goddess ship and Witchcraft as strong alternatives for women.75 Ranck sees the freedom of choice in religion that she is viding for women as an essential part of Unitarian versalism, which she describes as a "Mystic Religion": "To im such freedom of choice means that we must look to no nority but that of our own experience. Ours is in many ways mystic’ religion...each person is forced back on her sonal experience with the divine as the final authority for :is loving and just. The divine is usually experienced as .nent in oneself and in the natural world, and ghtenment.is usually felt.as a harmony with the process of re."76 Ranck believes that the journey to understanding female ious experience and women’s experience in general, can 'fficult: "For women, especially, to tap the power of ntic selfhood.is to be painfully aware of the myriad ways ich society works against the expression of female ience. To express that experience is to be in conflict almost everything in society -- language, the legal , the government, the economy, the structure of the , and the symbolism of most world religions, all of were designed to express and enhance the experience of "77 inc "Wi an< des Che the at des des nee by nee has the em for 911?: 27 To assist women in exploring these issues, the program icludes sections on such issues as "Reclaiming Our Bodies," thy Did It Happen: Shift From Goddess To God," "Witchcraft," Id "Future Fantasies."78 Gene Navias, Director of Religious Education at the UUA scribed the impact of the program: "That has been a life anging program for many, many women.“9 Navias stated that e response to the program has been "marvelous." It provided bonding experience for the women involved. There have been astions about how men fit in the program, since it was signed for women. Navias believed it wasn’t a program :igned for men and that men should not participate. Women :ded their privacy. Male participation has been discouraged the Religious Education Department. Navias realized the d to develop other programs for men. He stated that there also been "some reaction" to the presence of Witchcraft in program.80 There are very few religious groups that would aurage its members to explore Witchcraft/Wicca or other ms of Goddess worship, let alone publish the materials that >le such exploration. Cleansing Our Temple: A Sexism Assessment for Unitarian ’ersalist Congregations, also grew out of the 1980 ilementation of Women and Religion Resolution." The program ides resources and an assessment designed to gather ation about sexist practices within a church. It is ned so that a congregation can administer it internally. Wm th all tilt Ste Pn 28 The program is designed to look at five aspects of church fez 1) worship services 2) congregational, committee, and ard meetings 3) staff and volunteer leadership 4) religious ucation programs and 5) religious education materials. A estionnaire is given to people involved in each area, and as my people as possible are encouraged to participate. Once ta is gathered, the program suggests implementing needed inges through a variety of avenues: worship services, igregational meetings, discussion groups, involvement of the 1th group, religious education, and information in the erh newsletter.81 Also included in the packet are :ources such as guidelines for avoiding sexist language and texts of the two resolutions on Women and Religion. In a paper entitled "Toward A Feminist Re—Formation," the . Dr. William (Bill) Schulz, President of the UUA, looks at impact of feminism on the denomination. He begins the ar with his own journey into feminism, and the development his own consciousness. He wrote that. he now includes ations from women in all sermons and speeches: "Since n constitute 60-70% of our members, they deserve to hear r sisters’ voices and be inspired by their sisters’ lives, it that the speaker be male."82 He is also proud that a has been an increase in the number of women on the UUA from 22% in 1979, when he became Executive—Vice dent, to 56% currently. rel "tr a f tha hav so ' the hat rej pol ene: Cre. all the Uni‘ the the eSSl toll: can thi] blu: 29 Schulz sees two major impacts of feminism in "re-making ligious faith."83 The first impact has been the ransformation of rational, dualistic, ideological faith into faith of balance, mutuality, and communion."84 He believes at feminism has broken down some of the dichotomies that we existed, and exposed the pattern that underlies a system, that the whole can be seen: "Feminism begs us to appreciate a fluidity of male and female; the unity of human and :ural; the interdependence of matter and spirit. From this iection of dualism and embrace of the holistic, new .itical implications flow: That I and the Other need not be :mies for we are both held in the hands of the same :ation; that ideology is an outmoded brand of politics; that life on the planet, not just human, has value unto itself; t power is to be shared and loyalty is to be to the versal."85 The second gift of feminism is "a change in the locus of Holy from the unseen to the seen."86 The holy is found in everyday: "The gods and goddesses, whatever they in nce be, are accessible to us in the taste of honey and the h of stone....feminism calls us back to an incarnated h, to a love of the earth, to pleasure in our bodies, to in our relationships. Religion is not just a matter of gs unseen. The gods and goddesses show their faces in the h of the world’s exuberance."87 C midst believ becomi willir spirit apprec rl church that b Wonen' princi abortj 0WD bc 1 Played t0 soc addres Unitar embrac than m T suPpor c°n0er patria 311cc es 30 Schulz believes that Unitarian-Universalism is in the it.0f a re-formation, and feminism plays a central role. He .eves that because of feminism, Unitarian Universalism is »ming'more global and intercultural, more relational, more ing to invite spiritual experience:and.not.just.talk;about itual experience, more passionate, and more willing to eciate Grace in balance with individualwill.‘38 The attitude towards women affects other issues within a :h. If a church believes women to be subordinate to men, belief will affect their views on abortion —- men control 1’s bodies not women. If a church embraces feminist :iples, this cannot help but affect their Views on :ion and lesbian.gay issues -— women.and men control their lodies and can make the best decisions for themselves. It is clear that women and the women’s movement have d prominent roles within the U-U Church. The commitment cial reform and women’s rights serve as foundations for sing issues such as abortion and lesbian-gay issues. ian 'Universalism. is a :religion that. has not only ed the feminist ideal, but applies that ideal better ost other religious groups. he: emphasis on feminist. beliefs, expressed. through t of women’s issues, abortion rights, and lesbian-gay ms, is an example of an attempt to deconstruct chal structures. In order for this attempt to be ful, the UUA must maintain an openness to new que of and 155 act "Of 0ft det les was beg was frc in raj the Cat to f0] to Cal 31 tions, to new concepts of family, to ajbreak.with the idea 'God the Father," and continue to build a new religious rstanding. * 'k 'k The role of lesbians is another topic central to women’s es. It is interesting to note that all early references to vity on lesbian—gay issues, refers to "Gay Caucus" or ice of Gay Concerns." Bob Wheatley, former Director of the e of Lesbian Gay Concerns, pointed out that the early e was between the terms gay and homosexual -- the term 'an was not part of the consciousness of the day: "It t a point of issue anywhere."“’It wasn’t until lesbians 1 working for differentiation in the mid 70’s that there i change in terminology. Wheatley, who made the change Office of Gay Concerns to Office of Lesbian-Gay Concerns 978, supported the change as soon as the issue was d.9° Richard (Dick) Nash, founder of the Gay Caucus, stated women were involved from the very beginning of the 5.91 Hal Lawson, an early member of the caucus, pointed a creation of co-chair positions, one for a woman, one man, around 1973, as symbolic of the Caucus’ commitment 'king with lesbiansfl” 'ne area where the response to Lesbians has been ive is in the U-U’Women’s Federation. In 1983, a Lesbian met at a Federation meeting in Vancouver. The President of t on 1 then dial tent atmo with cond abou be "les Wome was was PrEt THE 1) Educ acti Pres lait 32 he Federation believed there needed to be more education esbian issues, and she reached out to the caucus. Since , there have been a number of lesbian-non-lesbian ogues. These dialogues, which were uncomfortable and ative at first, resulted in a more positive, comfortable sphere between the lesbian and non-lesbian women.93 There were a number of indications of this discomfort Lesbians in the Women’s Federation. In a 1986 Survey cted by the Women’s Federation. A question was asked the most essential and least essential women’s issues to addressed. The least essential issue identified was Dian relations."%* Phyllis Rickter, President of the 1’s Federation, described a homophobic incident: "There . group very distressed that the Women’s Federation banner ised by a gay—lesbian group in a parade. People tend to :nd there are no lesbians even in large churches."9S SSUES Phe‘U-U’response to abortion” will examine several areas: asolutions and policies, as well as the Religious :ion materials, will be examined; 2) The words and IS of clergy will be explored; 3) In keeping with Vice- lent Judy Meyer’ 5 statement about leadership by the the responses of those in ‘the churches will be .ed; and.4) The writings of theologians within the church will The5u abor E? "h o l Univ deno Cons with men and most the R900 ChUr has. UUA: we t iSsu Pain mOVe been and 33 1 provide insight into the diversity of views on the issue. se areas combine to give a comprehensive view of the rtion issue from a U—U perspective. According to the Alyson Almanac: A Treasury of rmation for the Gay and Lesbian Community, "The Unitarian ersalist Association has gone further than any other mination to defend the rights of gay men and lesbians.W% idering the resolutions of the General Assembly that deal issues such as ministerial placement for lesbians.and.gay Services of Holy Union for same sex couples, and civil human rights, the track record of the UUA is clearly the progressive of any religious group in the country. Only Friends General Conference (Quaker), Reform, nstructionist and Humanistic Judaism, and the United :h of Christ have begun to do some of things that the UUA ione. Gene Navias, Director of Religious Education for'the ;tates: "In terms of the rights of gay and lesbian people, ok a prophetic stance."97 Taking such a stance has not been easy, however. The of lesbian and gay rights has proved difficult, often ul, particularly in the early years of the gay rights ent within the church, between 1970 and 1975. There has an ongoing process of self—education within the church 'thin the church’s lesbian and gay community. here have also been major transitions within the ’3 lesbian and gay community, which mirror much of what is c_ the SCht ass: stra wani Quew app: way app: the Gay way the whit Off: thal Unit Vis: the Way: tewe res! 34 going on in the lesbian and gay communities nation wide. In gay'men’s movement, two views, also reflective of feminist 0015 of thought, have clearly surfaced. The imilationists argue that gay men and lesbians are like ight people with the same wants and desires, and simply the same rights. Others, such as the radical fairies, r Nation, and Act Up take a more activist, empowerment oach that says "queer" is good, "queer" is different. The to make change is to "flaunt it." This difference in oach has been evident in the UUA. Earlier leaders in the lesbian and gay movement were more confrontational, while current leadership, at least in the Office of Lesbian and Concerns (OLGC), is more assimilationist. There are several aspects of the movement for lesbian and rights within the UUA. The first is the early history of Jay caucus through the 1970’s. Then a look at the OLGC, 1 was formerly the Office of Gay Concerns (OGC), and the :e:of'Gay Affairs (OGA), will illustrate the various views have been taken on lesbian and gay rights. Services of , placement of Lesbian and Gay clergy, the "Common n," and the "Welcoming Congregation," are activities of ovement today. AIDS has been dealt with by the UUA in three primary The first is through action on both the centralized by the UUA, and on the congregational level. A second use has been through the resolution process, whereby the UUA ha has be has pr- use by A progre howeve disagr 35 has made public statements about AIDS. The third response been educational. The Department of Religious Education prepared a number of programs and information packets for by congregations. All three issues illustrate a basic U—U commitment to ressive action and ideas. Within that basic commitment ver, there is often disagreement on specific issues. That greement is also part of the U-U tradition. Uni' m Ron. 354 Uni‘ Bosi B0st 1(BC 1982 36 ENDNOTES 1. Spencer Lavan and George Huntston Williams, "The tarian.and Universalist.Traditions,":hn Carinq;and Curing: 1th and Medicine in the Western religious Traditions, ed. ald Numbers and Darrel Amundsen (New York: MacMillan, 1986) 2. Gary Provost, "A Brief History of Unitarian ersalism," 1982, UUA, Boston, 1—4. 3. Lavan and Williams, 354. 4. Ibid., 355. 5. Ibid. 6. Provost, 3, author does not cite John Relly. 7. Ibid. 8. Lavan and Williams, 355. 9. Provost, 4. 10. Ibid. 11. Lavan and Williams, 356. 12. Office of Ministry, UUA, 24 March 1992. 13. Judy Meyer, interview by author, Tape recording, >n, 15 August 1991. 14. Ibid. 15. William Schulz, interview by author, Tape recording, n, 14 August 1992. 16. "Principles and Purposes," in UUA Directory- 1990 ton: UUA, 1990) 447. 17. Jack Mendelsohn, "Meet the Unitarian Universalists," UUA, Boston, 5-6. [8. Ibid., 5. L9. Ibid. I 7. Rel fl fl Dep. Bosh autl Bosi Elle 37 20. Hugo Hollerorth, "What Is The Unitarian Universalist igion?," chap. in Relating to Our‘World: the philosophy of igious Education undergirding the multimedia curriculum ies of the Unitarian Universalist Association (Boston: UUA artment of Education and Social Concern, 1974) 9. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid., 10. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid., 11. 26. Gene Navias, interview by author, Tape recording, on, 12 August 1991. 27. Meyer, interview by author. 28. Phyllis Rickter and Betty Hoskins, interview by or, Tape recording, Boston, 14 August 1991. 29. Ibid. 30. Robert Wheatley, interview by author, Tape recording, >n, 13 August 1991. 31. Ibid. ‘32. Ibid. 33. Mendelsohn, 1982, 8. 34. Ibid., 9, author does not cite source for William y Channing. 35. Hollerorth, 13. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Navias, interview by author. :9. Schulz, interview by author. 0. Navias, interview by author. 1. Ibid. (Mal Whii (Na: IL: Cros Cros CE: 0 /.=.« and 38 42. Ibid. 43. Anthony Kosnik, ed., Human Sexuality: New Directions l American Catholic Thought (New York: Paulist Press, 1977). 44. Patricia Beattie Jung and Thomas A. Shannon, ed., Lortion and Catholicism: The American Debate (New York: 'ossroad Publishing, 1988). 45. Jeannine Gramick and Pat Furey, The Vatican and mosexuality: Reactions to the ‘Letter to the Bishops of the tholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons’ ew York: Crossroad Press, 1988). 46. Anita Bryant, The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of r Nation’s Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality 1d Tappan, NJ: Fleming Revell Co., 1977). 47. DickziHafery Homosexuality: Legitimate! .Alternate athstyle (Boise, Idaho: The Paradigm Co., 1986). 48. David A. Noebel, The Slaughter of the Innocent anitou Springs, CO: Summit Ministries, 1979). 49. Randall Terry, Operation Rescue (Springdale, PA: .taker House, 1988). 50. Jerry Falwell, If I Should Die Before I Wake... .shville: Thomas Nelson, 1986). 51. Frank Peretti, This Present Darkness (Westchester, Crossway Books, 1986). 52. , Piercing' the ‘Darkness (Westchester, IL: sway Books, 1989). 53. Roger Elwood, Ang_elwalk: A Modern Fable (Westchester, Crossway Books, 1988). 54. Frank Peretti, Tilly: the novel (Westchester, IL: sway Books, 1988). 55. Paul R. Johnson, Gays and the New Right: A Debate On sexualit (Los Angeles: Marco and Johnson, 1981). 56. , Quotations From Chairman Falwell (Los les: Marco and Johnson, 1981). 57. , Gays and Fundamentalism (Los Angeles: Marco ohnson, 1982). m Frar Hori home 39 58. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is The gmosexual My Neighbor?: Another Christian View (San 'ancisco: Harper and Row, 1978). 59. Chris Glaser, Come Home!: Reclaiming Spirituality and mmunity as Gay Men and Lesbians (San Francisco: Harper and w, 1990). 60. Thomas L.P. Swicegood, Our God. Too (New ‘York: ramid, 1974). 61. Ckflni Boswell, Christianity, Social ToleranceL and posexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 62. Beverly Wildung Harrison, Our Right To Choose: Toward Jew Ethic of Abortion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983). 63. Pamela I. Pierson and Linda C. Schreiber, "A Wider rizon: UU Women With A Vision, " 1985, Unitarian Universalist men’s Federation and the UUA Pamphlet Commission, Boston. 64. Ibid. 65. "Unitarian Universalist Women’s Heritage Society, " U- 'omen’s Heritage Society, Watertown, Massachusetts. 66. "Women Reshaping Unitarian Church," The Washington _§, 13 July 1984. 67. Ibid. 68. Meyer, interview by author. 69. Rickter and Hoskins, interview by author. 70. Ibid. 71. Leslie Cronin, "ERA.continues slow progress*with.help UUA staff members," UU World, 15 March 1977, 3. 72. Cleansing_ Our Temple: A Sexism .Assessment for arian Universalist Con re ations (Boston: UUA Women and gion Committee, 1991) 24. .73. Jack Mendelsohn, Women and Religion in the UUA, inted by UU Women's Federation, 15 June 1977. 74. Cleansing Our Temple, 25. 75. Shirley Ann Ranck, Cakes For The_Queen Of Heaven on: Department of Religious Education of the UUA, 1986) 7E 77 78 79 8C 8] 82 Unpubli 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ”hm 40 76. Ibid., 9-10. 77. Ibid., 10. 78. Ibid., 2. 79. Navias, interview by author. 80. Ibid. 81. Cleansing Out Temple, 1-2. 82. William Schulz. "Toward A Feminist Re—Formation," blished, From the Author, August 1991. 83. Ibid., 7. 84. Ibid. 85. Ibid., 9. 86. Ibid., 7. 87. Ibid., 9-10. 88. Ibid., 11. 89. Wheatley, interview by author. 90. Ibid. 91. Richard Nash, interview by author, Phone interview, rch 1992. 92. Hal Lawson, interview by author, Tape recording, , MI, 12 January 1992. 3. Rickter and Hoskins, interview by author. 4. "UUWF Survey—1986," U-U Women's Federation, Boston, 5. Rickter and Hoskins, interview by author. 6. The Alyson Almanac: A Treasury of Information for the nd Lesbian Communit , (Boston: Alyson Publications, 196. 7. Navias, interview by author. ACTION Parent} a more which I will al ABORTION 3N ON THE DENOMINATIONAL LEVEL William Schulz, President of The UUA, believes that there lose to consensus among U—U’s in their views on abortion: My guess is that of major public policy issues today abortion would be the issue around which U— U’s wouLd be most united; would have the largest consensus. This is just an intuitive sense of mine. If you contrast it with gay and lesbian issues...or certainly war and peace issues...in terms of the response I get when I take a position...the issue about which there is the least consternation within our ranks is the broadly construed pro-choice position. I think that’s reflected in the fact that I can’t name for you other than George {Williams} a prominent U-U leader who would identify as pro- life. Now within that very broad statement of what it means to be pro—choice, I’m sure is a question that would elicit a fair number of visions among us. I’m not sure that we, or even the pro-choice community itself, have thought thoroughly enough about the tremendous complexities involved, both psychologically and philosophically, in the decision to have an abortion and all the philosophical and theological implications of the act. In general I would say that that is an issue about which we are little divided.1 For Schulz, the commitment to abortion rights is strong. [5 recently elected to the Board of Directors of Planned lthood: "I am very pleased about that because it will be 'e direct link between the UUA and an organization with many U—U’s have had connections....the cooperation it allow will be important."2 41 Th demonst first r WH co Th) context nationa study 01 Year a: etiuoati‘ “at” 1. Amt-”tin Until F 42 The resolutions passed on the issue of abortion [strate a strong commitment to the ‘pro—choice’ View. The 2 resolution was passed in 1963. It stated: WHEREAS, we as Unitarian—Universalists are deeply concerned for dignity and rights for human beings: and WHEREAS, the laws which narrowly circumscribe or completely prohibit termination of' pregnancy* by qualified medical practitioners are an affront to human life and dignity; and WHEREAS, these statues drive many' women in the United States and Canada to seek illegal abortions with increased risk of death, while others must travel to distant lands for lawful relief; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED: That the Unitarian Universalist Association support enactment of a uniform statue making abortion legal if: 1. There would be grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the mother; 2. The child would be born with a serious physical or mental defect; 3. Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest; 4 There exists some other compelling reason— physical, psychological, mental, spiritual, or economic.3 The 1963 resolution is particularly noteworthy given the ,Xt in which it came into being. One of the earliest nal groups to deal with abortion, the Association for the of Abortion, did not come into existence until 1964, the ‘after the U—U resolution.4 That group focused on :ion of physicians and other professionals. The first 0! ‘lobbying group, The National Association for Repeal of on Laws, didn’t have its first organizational meeting (February of 1969, by which time the UUA had already pass: laws addrw resoj earlj limi' was; in t abor to w. went abor Thes indi rest FauX deno: 0f . 43 sed a resolution calling for abolition of anti—abortion 5.5 Asked whether either the Unitarians or Universalists had ressed the issue prior to the 1961 merger or the 1963 olution, President Schulz replied: "My guess is it was too ly...that concern for those types of issues was very :ited, certainly in the pre-60’s."6 Schulz believed there 0a great deal of attention focused on birth control issues that period. It is not surprising that the UUA addressed urtion before other religious groups, given its commitment women’s issues and creating social change. A 1968 resolution, which passed by an over 2/3 margin,7 it even further by calling for abolition of all laws against urtion: BE IT RESOLVED: That the General Assembly of the Unitarian-Universalist Association urges that efforts be made to abolish existing abortion laws except to prohibit performance of an abortion by a person who is not a duly licensed physician, leaving the decision as to an abortion to the doctor and his patient.8 e statements made very early in the pro-choice movement, cated that the U-U’s "pioneered in movements to eliminate rictive laws regarding abortion."9 In Roe V. Wade, Marian states that in 1969 the U—U’s "were the only Protestant mination to have taken a strong stand on abortion."10 In 1969, a resolution was passed supporting the efforts clergy involved in counseling pregnant women. This ution was particularly timely given the involvement of U-U c1 Aborti aborti I-rl ml...” 5' E aborti eXpres Opposi ban at the [n could favor SuPpor resoly Right! and u: reSDOI clihic ”WhenI in 195 telits l 44 :lergy at that time in the Clergy Consultation Service on tion, a group committed to helping women obtain illegal tions: BE IT RESOLVED: That the 1969 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association expresses its support for and encouragement of ministers who are participants in counseling services for women with problem pregnancies.1 Besides these key early resolutions, eight others on tion have been passed by the UUA. In 1973, the UUA essed its support for the Roe V. Wade decision and its sition to efforts to create a Constitutional amendment to abortion. In 1975, the ’73 resolution was reaffirmed, and JUA called on the Unitarians in Canada to do what they 1 for abortiOn rights. A 1977 resolution spoke out in of Medicaid funding for abortions, and in 1978 the'UUA’s rt for abortion rights was reaffirmed once again. A 1980 ution supported the Religious Coalition for Abortion ’3 "Call to Commitment.A Religious Statement.on Abortion" rged an increase in educational efforts to encourage sible sexuality. In 1985 the Zbombings of abortion 5 were addressed and in 1986 the National March for s Lives was endorsed. The most recent.resolution, passed 7 reaffirmed many of the stances taken previously (For of these resolutions please see Appendix A).12 in addition to all of the resolutions that the UUA has on the abortion issue, it has also become involved legall Pia—(tel the Re m briefs involv aborti which aborti ABORTI T 1970 v the pr People NaVias there 1 aborti. “Solar to add] the ri Worry i I] birth Elbortiw 45 lly. In order to underscore its strong support for Roe V. , the UUA joined an Amicus or Friend of the Court brief by Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights in the case of ter v. Reproductive Health Services. It has also joined fs relating to the cases of Turnock v. Raqsdale which lves "unreasonable restrictions on clinics performing tions"3 and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health h involves parental notification for minors seeking tion.14 TION- RELIGIOUS EDUCATION The issue of abortion was not included in the original version of About Your Sexuality (AYS). It was added to >rogram with the third edition in 1983.15 There were many .e who felt that the issue needed to be addressed. Gene s, Director of Religious Education for the UUA, remembers being little if any adverse reaction to the addition of ion. It was in part because of the General Assembly ations that the Religious Education Department was able lress abortion- "the GA had passed a resolution affirming ight of women to choose....we didn’t have a thing to about . "16 n the 1983 edition of AYS, the issues of abortion and control are handled together. The introduction to on states: 46 The topic of abortion has been placed in this unit as the most appropriate place within the course. Its inclusion is necessitated in today’s world by the mounting discussion of the pros and cons of abortion, the proposal of a Constitutional Amendment in the United States to prohibit abortion, the conviction of millions of women that they have a right to determine whether they shall or shall not give birth to a baby, and the mounting numbers of unwanted pregnancies by young teenage women. It is important that young people have the opportunity to explore these issues and their feelings about them. Leaders need to be pmepared for this to be as emotional an issue for youth as it is for their elders.17 init opens with the leader discussing what abortion is and the various schools of thought are about the issue: There is no single authoritative "right" position on abortion free of moral quandaries, emotional trauma and guilt, or of abuse by various individuals and groups. Any assertion about when human life begins is arbitrary. The issue is complex and is not a matter of those who oppose abortion choosing life and those who support abortion choosing death. It is necessary today for each person to arrive thoughtfully at a position which one believes is sound and in which one can have confidence.18 The activities are designed for the participants to ss how they feel about the issue. It asks them to te sentences Like: "Abortion is...", "People who get 'ons are...", "If my parents found out I {or my iend} had an abortion they would..."19 The activities the participants in exploring a variety of views on the RESPONE Tl been st choice Harvard Life. I the is: "1 Church in the rEinter of Wome real [11”. 47 PONSE OF CLERGY TO ABORTION The response of U—U clergy to the issue of abortion has n strongu Many clergy have felt called to support the pro— »ice position, the major exception being George Williams of yard Divinity School, who was founder of Americans For 'e. There have been.numerous sermons and papers delivered on : issue. "Freedom Light" by the Rev. Kit Howell of the Unitarian chh of Ft. Lauderdale, FI.is one such sermon. It is written the tradition of Letty Russel and Phyllis Trible who .nterpret the texts and the tradition to reveal the status women. The sermon deals with what Rev. Howell sees as the .l underlying issues in the abortion debate: However, there is a key to the real issue in one of the letters I received. One pastor wrote, "God created women to bear children." And I think the key is there. I think the religious right’s problem with abortion has very little to do with abortion. I think it has to do with women. I believe that on a very deep level, our culture, which is male dominated, has a pathology. It is afraid of women. Perhaps it is because women can perform the most essential creative act within the realm of our experience, that is, they can bear children. It is easy to see that our first religions were fertility religions worshipping the Great Mother Goddess. Of all the signs of the divine in life, the act of birth is the most accessible. So perhaps men have always felt somewhat intimidated by women who so obviously walked closely with the divine- at least intimidated enough to react by socially, culturally, and religiously controlling women. 11 goes on to rethink the Adam and Eve story in light of 'mpact on women. "It tells us that women are to be kept in prison. " walls tl day, am When a l bear chi under th the male our cult now abm freedom How or not f. women tc At rel hay wha chc son mea giy Gag chc fur She one won EVE for a 0' but HOWQll ( Stink. II free(tons 48 .son."21 Childbirth, desire, and conception become the .15 that enslave Eve. These walls imprison women to this ', and anti-abortion forces are trying to maintain them. an a woman has control over her body and the decision to lr children, the prison walls crumble: "Now Eve is out from ler the thumb of the masculine God, or rather the thumb of a male dominated culture. And again, I believe this scares ‘ culture to its very core.... Eve is out of her cage and 7 abortion has become the catchall for all the fear her aedom evokes."22 Howell, while not "Believing in the killing of fetuses" not feeling "pro—abortion," strongly advocates the right of wen to choose:23 At a basic level this is not simply a moral or a religious question. It is a legal one. A woman must have the right to her own body. You may not like what she does with it, but it is her business. Pro- choice does not mean pro-abortion. It is when we somehow think that pro—choice and pro-abortion do mean the same thing that we confuse ourselves and give ammunition to those who want women to live in cages. Because either a woman has the right to choose or she doesn’t. Either a woman has the basic fundamental right of a person in a free society or she doesn’t. I speak, of course, of the right to one’s own life. The right to one’s own body. A woman is either a sexual slave or a free person. Eve is either in prison or out. The dividing line for this issue has become abortion. I wish it were a dividing line of less pain and less consequence, but it is not.”’ ll contends that the pro choice people need to "make a k." People need to start fighting for the fundamental doms of women. She is concerned that the danger of going back tc women d Ir Chetwyr School, bY desc her, t] ab°rtic 49 to the era of back room abortions, where thousands of 1 died, is great:25 {Women} are losing their right to make their own decisions about the single most crucial aspect of their own lives. These decisions cannot be made by self-righteous men in clerical robes or in legislative sessions. They cannot be made by rabbis, United States Presidents, ministers, brothers or even sisters. These decisions belong to the woman and her doctor. Talk about murder! To deny a woman this right, the right to a safe abortion,is to condemn her to darkness- to death. Physical death, cultural death, political death, spiritual death. Right to life? Whose right, and to what kind of a life? Without the freedom to choose, a woman has no life. As long as ‘women. get. pregnant, there will be abortions. The question is will they be safe? And if not, who is condemned to the danger? The rich who can go where they will to get a safe abortion?- or is it the poor, condemned to coat hangers and home remedies. I think we know the answer to that... Life with hope. Life with freedom. Life - and a woman’s right to it. Insist on it. There is no other way. In a world without end, Amen.26 In her paper "The New Scarlet Letter" Cynthia Frado ynd, at the time a U-U student at Harvard Divinity 1, brings a very personal dimension to the abortion issue cribing her experience having an abortion, and how, for the scarlet letter ‘A’ has changed from adultery to 'on: s I endured a pregnancy which was hampered by so any physical complications and extenuating ircumstances, I came to realize that pro-choice as pro-life. A very serious reality check informed otherwise The People mu: them for w 50 my decision. It was the most life giving choice for myself and my family. That does not mean that it was without pain. Yet, once the decision had been made there was no turning back. I knew the feelings of desperation. Had the choice not been available to me, I would have done anything to end the suffering I was experiencing.”anything!"-7 described how she felt abandoned by people who rwise supported her: The shame and guilt that surrounded an already painful yet necessary decision were magnified beyond proportion. And the sad truth of the matter is that many of these remarks came from liberally "enlightened" people. You know those who know all the right words to say when being liberal really matters. Yes it is true that one can be pro-choice and not necessarily be pro—abortion. There is, however, a fine line where absurdity comes into play. We cannot carry our' banners supporting a woman’s right to choose an% then not know her at the abortion clinic’s door. had Le must accept the choices that women make and not label ifor exercising their freedom of choice. The Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion was founded ward Moody, a U.C.C.- Congregationalist minister from New in the mid- 60’s. While this was not an organization Ed by U-U’s, it was not surprising given U-U commitment icial action, :ularly strong. Among the early ministers trained to work the service was The Reverend Farley Willwright, a U—U :er who was serving a church on Long Island at the time. Tight subsequently moved to Cleveland where he organized that the involvement of U-U clergy was a new C Director Wil Service names of perform if it wa on to Se women to clinics, forbiddi not usir Service The Ser Confiden lillwrig ital) D( E 0am 51 ew chapter of the Consultation Service and became its actor. Willwright described the functions of the Consultation rice on two levels. The first function was to find the as of doctors within a particular state who were willing to iorm illegal abortions. The facility was then checked, and t was thought to be safe the name of the doctor was passed 0 Services in other states. The second function referred n.to doctors in states other than their own, or to foreign 105, for’ abortions. In. many states there ‘were laws idding referral of women for abortions, accordingly, by using physicians in their own states, the Consultation ice believed it would be on more solid ground, legally. Service utilized the clergy’s right to confessional/ identiality to try to protect themselves legally. rright said: "We were taking chances -- no doubt about Despite this Willwright believed the Service was very rable to prosecution. Indeed, the State of Massachusetts the process of prosecuting the Service when the Roe V. ecision was handed down. n the years that Willwright.was with.the Service, he saw ds of women, described as mostly middle class, white, ° about 40% were Catholic. The Service in Cleveland ed out of the U-U Church Willwright served. There were and ministers from a number of denominations involved e service, including’ all 20 U-U‘ ministers in. the ‘ clevela women 1 women a darn su by the; first t some re as "a h this f< prevent Tl receive appears an art 340.111! One on thongh twig, 52 eveland area. The clergy would take turns consulting with men who wanted abortions. The ministers talked with the men about their options and what they wanted to do. "We made rn sure they wanted the.abortion.and weren’t.being pressured their family or husband."3° If the woman was past the rst trimester, abortion was not recommended. Willwright had e reservations about what they were doing, but described it "a hell of a lot better than doing nothing....we didn’t do '5 for abortion. We did it for the benefit of the women to vent back alley abortions."31 The Service ended. up Ibeing' quite Icontroversial and eived a great deal of press coverage. Willwright himself neared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and had article written about him in the tabloid The National [pi;§;. The Service was also featured on Sixty Minutes. On :occasion a local woman.died from an illegal abortion. Even ugh she was not a client, and not connected with the vice.in any way, the Service, and Willwright in particular, e blamed for the death, and Willwright’s life was eatened. 32 Willwright described the UUA’s involvement as being ither supportive or unsupportive...There was nothing {the could do." 33 It was the individual clergy who took .on. At the time the UUA was very involved with the black 1 rights and empowerment. movements and. much of its urces and attention were directed that way. Accordingly, the UUA clergy, h Service certainly part of with opti RESPONSE Phyl (UUWF), a action th importanc base for essential 331$: “15 is (1mm 0 the legal To her, r9301“. 10 53 UUA did not contribute financially to the Service. The 'gy, however, were very involved - "Wherever there was a ’ice you would have found U-U ministers there....we ainly took a lot of action."“‘ The Service was a visible , of the early abortion rights movement, providing women options, in a period when their options were limited. ONSE AND ACTION BY THE LAITY Phyllis Rickter, President of the U-U Women's Federation F), argues that resolutions are the work of the top, and on the work of the grass roots.35 While acknowledging the rtance of resolutions for the press, outsiders, and as a for the Board of Directors, she sees action as the ltial component}36 Likewise U-U theologian Betty Hoskins "Is the policy at all relevant?...{the choice movement} >wn on the sidewalk."y'She believes it is the action of ocal churches and the local ministers that is essential. er, it is more important to do work than write utions. She describes it as an "eternal argument as to er resolutions of the General Assembly inform or in any direct individual congregations or individual 'Lences."38 Hoskins believes "It may affect how we are l in the world as they make the newspapers."39 .ing to Rickter: "They issue press releases and people talk about it. But it’s very removed from the grass roots. "an for the B the reso Washingt resoluti becoming needs to The refo proclama congrega The involved conducted essential most wil] Church ’ s done in n 54 :s."40 For Rickter the resolutions provide a foundation the Board and for President Schulz to operate. Because of resolutions on abortion, Schulz was able. to go to lington for the National March for Women’ 5 Lives. The llutions also play a role in keeping the denomination from »ming too extreme by ensuring a thoughtful process that Ls to be worked through before a resolution can be passed. reform-oriented resolutions are also important as public lamations of U-U beliefs, and as ideals for individual regations. There are numerous stories about how U-U’s became lved in the abortion rights movement. In a 1986 survey acted by the UUWF, Abortion was seen as both the most ntial women’s issue and the one that respondents would be willing to work on.41 The following case of the Dallas :h’s involvement in Roe V. Wade, and the study of abortion in Madison, WI, are two examples of the U-U grass roots :tion. In Roe V. Wade, Marian Faux devotes a large portion of a er 'to the support given the abortion case by ‘the rians in Dallas, Texas: "As nearly' as any‘ of the cipants could recall, abortion reform in Texas began in fall 1969, when Virginia Whitehill, a Planned Parenthood member, responded to a request from the local Unitarian z for someone to speak to them about abortion. At the time the ‘ have take In ti Unitarian coincided make abor Spea Parenthoo personal responded women res Clustered be done. group arc The StUdY Abo President had invi1 Unitarian Sta‘unches and an o, Wher Coffee a working j group, fc abortion 55 me the Unitarians were the only Protestant denomination to ve taken a strong stand on abortion"” In the previous year, the Women’s Auxiliary of the Dallas itarian Church had been studying the issue of abortion. This incided nationally with the Women’ s Federation’ s vote to :e abortion their number one priority.“3 Speaking with the U-U women, Whitehill from Planned renthood stirred them to action. She spoke on a very ’sonal level and made the issue one ‘which the women :ponded to strongly and very personally. "The Unitarian Len responded enthusiastically to her cry for reform...they ,stered around Whitehill after her speech to ask what could done. Someone suggested that they organize a new separate up around the issue of abortion."“ The group came to be known as the Dallas Committee to y Abortion. At its core were Whitehill, Ellen Kalina, then ident of the Dallas U-U women’s group and Pat White who invited Whitehill to speak. The minister of the Dallas arian church, Rev. Dwight Brown, proved to be one of their nchest supporters, and offered the group a meeting room an office in the church.“ When beginning their work on Roe V. Wade, attorneys ee and Weddington knew of no abortion reform groups 46 ing in Dallas or anywhere in Texas. The fore-mentioned , founded by U-U women, became very central in the Texas ion rights movement. The group became involved in lobbying : in public door to significa attention legislatu Texans in At Committee undertook Presented issue. 11‘ effort tc The (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) The Socia the steer 56 abbying religious organizations for support, and participated i public forums. It also created a speakers bureau and went or to door lobbying throughout Texas. The group had a gnificant impact on abortion rights in Texas by bringing tention to the issue, and constantly lobbying the Texas gislature. They were also able to bring several prominent xans into the abortion movement."' * 'k * At the request of the minister and Social Action nmittee, the First Unitarian Society of Madison, Wisconsin iertook a study of abortion in 1979. The Society's report esented a very thoughtful, careful analysis of the abortion sue. It was also an excellent example of a lay group’s fort to address social concerns. The study was designed to look at five questions: (1) When is abortion justified? When is abortion not justified? (2) How do you compare the value and quality of life as they relate to the abortion issue? (3) At what level does the right/responsibility for decision exist? Is it a legal?—medical?-economic? -religious?-and/or individual question? (4) When does human life begin? And what relevance does that beginning have to the question of abortion? (5) Is it possible to make a rule (ruling) about abortion? Or is every potential abortion a unique situation?"8 Social Concerns Committee of the Madison church served as steering committee for the task force. It appointed a nine member issue. ongoing As the members the fin availal DE diversi members a) b) examine history ab°rti< and 5) forge : the is: 57 er committee, with Marcia Bradley as Chair, to examine the e. The task force report was designed to serve as an ing base for discussion of abortion within the church. the task force began to meet it "discovered that all ers of the task force felt that abortion on demand during first trimester of pregnancy is a choice that should be lable."49 Despite this liberal base for agreement it found a wide rsity of views and many reservations among task force ers. The reservations included: a) Abortion is not the most suitable form of birth control. b) Abortion on demand may adversely affect the respect for life of our and future generations. c) Abortion forces one to place the value of one life above that of another. d) "Trivial" reasons for an abortion, such as for sex selection, may arise, and a screening mechanism may be justified. e) Whereas abortion on demand is now available, economic discrimination is a problem. Providing public assistance for abortion services may be offensive to a segment of the population which opposes abortion.50 The report of the task force, dated March 1, 1980, ned a variety of issues. The report looked at: 1) The ry of abortion in the Unites States 2) philosophy of ion 3)abortion.and.the individual 4) abortion.and society ) limitations on abortion. In the introduction the task identified a central theme that underlies all five of sues 3 The Th1 the hisi distinC' were re morally quicken in prot, W W involvi‘ Sel‘vice abortio operati abortio This r) (illicken The r« praetit and 18: ab°rtio the Dre Changes *7— 58 The task force concluded that decisions concerning abortion should be made with respect and reverence for the humanity of the fetus, the well being of the mother both physically and mentally, and the quality of life in our society. The need to respect life on all three of those levels is the theme that underlies most of the opinions expressed in this paper and will be referred to in following sections of the report.51 The first part of the Madison report gave an overview of e history of abortion in the United States. There were three stinct periods in the 1800’s: 1) From 1800-1830 "abortions e regarded as physically safe, legally acceptable, and ally conscionable, provided the abortion took place before 'ckening."”:2) From 1840—1860 the state took more interest protecting the health of its citizens: "The rising demand :’ abortions by' married. women, some lurid court cases rolving abortions, and the commercialization of abortion rvices, including advertisements in the public press, made trtion a public concern. This and the medical danger of the :ration (more dangerous than childbirth at the time), made rtion the object of legislation for the public good."53 s resulted in restrictions on doing abortions after ckening being passed in 20 states between 1840 and 1860, restrictions, however, ‘were placed on abortion :titioners, not on women. 3) The third period between 1861 1881, was when restrictive laws were passed banning tions before quickening and penalizing women as well as practitioner. 5" The report did not analyze why these ges occurred. In report i As Based c Edward clain t the fet the fet other points; fetus 1 mother Claim t these t Ir MadiSor 59 In looking at the philosophy of abortion, rt took a middle of the road position: As a committee we found both the extreme conservative arguments and extreme liberal arguments showed a lack of respect for life in one way or another and therefore we arrived at a middle position. The extreme conservative position contends that the fetus is a person and therefore has as strong a claim to life as any person. To the conservative, then, having an abortion would be the same as murdering a person....On the other hand, the extreme liberal position is that the fetus is not a person or yet human and therefore there is no moral dilemma. Abortion can be justified in any situation. Most members of the committee felt uncomfortable with this position. Judging from the reservations expressed, most members of the committee felt that the fetus was human in some sense, either as an actual person or as a potential human and that humanity should be respected. Therefore, while the decision to abort a fetus should be an individual decision, it should not be an irresponsible or thoughtless decision. d on these concerns, rd Langerak, who argued the Madison the committee adopted the view of "That the fetus may have some n to life but the mother’s claim to life is stronger until Fetus reaches a certain point.in development at which time fetus will have the same rights or claim to life as any person."“’ To Langerak, there are two essential Ls; implantation and viability. Prior to implantation the has very little claim to life, and the claim of the tr is greater. At the point of viability the fetus has a .to life that supersedes the needs of the mother. Between two points the respective claims vary.”' n the section on abortion and the individual, the n report argued that the decision must ultimately be made bj to be contro of bi] situat Ali—l tron—1.03930» ‘Imlfl The CC abort: Often an it S°mewl CaSe ] 60 de by the mother. This position also meant that there needed be an increase in availability of birth control and birth ntrol information so that abortion does not become a means birth control. The report goes on to look at various tuations where abortion may be called for: Although we agree that the fetus has no inherent claim on the mother, we do acknowledge the wonder and_ reverence of life. Thus ‘we :recognize. that abortion is necessary under certain conditions. The following list is not meant to be a guide to others of when abortion is an appropriate course of action but only a list that we as a committee agreed upon. 1. for victims of incest or rape 2. for diagnosed fetal malformation 3. for unmarried women, especially young teenagers 4. for women with serious medical illness which has a high.probability'of’significantly shortening her life for a woman whose husband has a terminal illness 6. for women who already have several children for women known to have a high risk of delivering a seriously handicapped child. The committee feels that an individual might have more difficulty making a decision in the following situations: 1. abortion for convenience early in the marriage 2. abortion for a married woman with a small number of children and several years since the birth of her last child. we believe ‘that abortion for’ sex discrimination wrong . 58 is committee also identified two considerations affecting the rtion decision. The first is that the abortion dilemma is en contemplated within the woman, not between the woman and institution. The second is that guidelines are only what helpful. Each abortion decision must be made on a by case basis.59 The In this abortion society erosion argument augmente: by its planning stressed abortion; Strive ti through - The rep« abortion Situatio] The limitati, religion: limitath as a cor abortion accoth 1 indiVidu; State in 61 The Madison report then turned to abortion and society. n this section, the issue of the individual’s right to bortion was examined, taking into consideration "What sort of ociety it is that can allow abortion without risking the rosion of the high value (placed. on human life."60 The rgument was that "the perceived sanctity of a human life is ugmented by the deliberateness of its creation and threatened its abundance."61 The importance of developing family anning services and the hope that children are wanted is ressed: "In an ideal society one ‘would like to have ortions performed as rarely as possible....society should :rive to make abortions less numerous by reducing the need, irough the program of sex education and family planning."62 1e report also stated that family planning including >ortion, must be available to all, regardless of financial tuation. The last section of the. Madison report deals ‘with mitations on abortion. The committee examined other ligious groups' statements about abortion and state itations on abortion. In terms of the other religions: "We a committee found most of the religious statements on rtion too restrictive in that they did not take into ount the consequences that unwanted pregnancies impose on ividual women and families.“53 Looking at the role of the te in abortion, the committee wrote: "There was general sensus among the task force members that the state should not be early : mother. definii practie mainta; T] reserv; Univer: indivil Furthe action aborti A Madiso There adopte reject °Pinio force, for re T denomi in the Luther °f 19a 62 be in a position of determining the appropriateness of an 1y abortion, that the decision ultimately belongs to the her. We did feel, however, that the state does have a inite role to play in setting some legal limits on the ctice of abortion and. those limits are important in ntaining our respect for individual human life.‘64 The report concluded with the fbllowing: "Despite our ervations, the task force agreed that Unitarian versalists must provide community leadership for supporting ividuals whose personal decision is to obtain an abortion. ther, members of the Society must be prepared to take ion to support the conclusions they reach on the issue of rtion."65 After its completion the paper was presented to the ison congregation. The impact of the Report was two fold. re was some discussion about the possibility of it being )ted as a congregational statement, but that idea was cted because the congregation did not want a single ion to represent it. Marcia Bradley, Chair of the task e, believed the document came to be used mainly as a tool reflection for individual church members.66 The paper also went on to be used in an inter— inational dialogue on abortion held among three churches e Madison area. The Madison Unitarian Society joined a ran and.a‘Roman Catholic Church.in.a dialogue in the Fall 86. Each group was given the opportunity to present its positie questic groups to the greate: we hol and va issues polari W good e issue, in he] Action energy uncert iSsue little we fel has mc women abortj n: 54 m .=1 In a"). n rn 63 sition while the other two groups listened. Only clarifying estions were allowed. There was no debate. Each.of the three cups had reservations about its stance. The folloW'up report the interfaith dialogue stated: "I think we all gained a eater respect for each other’s views. We learned that while hold differing views on abortion, we share many concerns 1 values. Perhaps if more groups were to discuss volatile sues in such a manner we would be less likely to engage in Larized debate that produces more heat than light.“” While the stories of the Dallas and Madison churches are >d examples of the work of congregations on the abortion :ue, there is another side:to this activity. Phyllis Rickter her 1989 article "Webster Decision Stirs U-U Women to ion--But HOW'Ambivalent We.Are!" describes both tremendous rgy' around the issue and 'tremendous ambivalence. The ertain future of abortion rights islonce again bringing the ue forward: "In the years since Roe V. Wade, there has been :le need to talk about reproductive freedom because many of felt secure: the law was on our side. Now the Supreme Court moved to limit the choice of abortion."‘68 She found many an searching for information and trying to work on the tion question: The more I hear U-U women talk--the more opinions are expressed—-the more I realize there isn’t a Single View of the question among us. As in most matters, women’s views are based on their life experiences, and the experiences of U-U women differ ‘widely; I do not ibelieve. there. is one opinion, one viewpoint, one "party line" on the subject among U-U’s. And yet I often hear the 1“ .- H5 A n_‘ n (9 most I choic. also 1 to re abort "We C Churc relig think about a nun belie We've Rickt are n Can 64 assumption that all_U>U's are "for" abortion.... While I’ve never heard-~yet-—a U-U woman say, "Never an abortion any time any place," I have heard a lot of "Yes, buts." And it is this diversity of opinion which I think we must recognize in order to be united, open, and fair.... I think we lose our impact and our focus as a religious movement when we ignore how complicated the question of abortion is.6 Rickter talks about the need for increased choices. While most U-U women agree that abortion should be available, other choices such as adoption.and.more information on birth control also need to be available and discussed. And women who choose to raise their babies should have the help they need.70 She also urges U-Us to remember their role in the abortion issue. As religious people, U-Us need to speak out: "We cannot continue to let fundamentalist and Roman Catholic churches claim that their anti-abortion views are the only religious views."71 Overall, women report to Rickter "I don’t know what I think about abortion any more, but I do know what I think about choice."n The ambivalence that Rickter perceives may have roots in a number of other factors. The first is class. Betty Hoskins >elieves that U-U’s "have a white middle class privilege and re've never really grappled ‘with the issues.“73 Phyllis ickter similarly reports: "the truth is most of our people re middle class people. If they have to have abortions they an afford to go get them, and they 'will.""' If these statemen some wom A S of peop] Cat chu Bec chi hon har chc \I I sup con A t Put on t Whe out for tal min wha nec are Giv the libe is no m0 it is c1 an Overw even all 65 itements are true there may not be strong motivation for me women to get out and fight for abortion rights of others. A second factor affecting the ambivalence is the number people that come to the U-U Church from other faiths: Catholics are leaving in droves and coming into our churches. It’s a lot of repercussion for us. Because they have to overcome all of those childhood lessons about choice and about homosexuality too. I think some of them swallow hard. In their head they know the right choice is choice...but in their emotional stuff they think ‘I’m not going to think about that.’...They’ll support social justice people, they’ll give contributions but it’s not a done deal.7 A third factor cited by Rickter is the social pressure : on those who aren’t pro-choice within U-U churches: When there’s a party line no one dares {to speak out}. You know and I know the people who are not for choice. But the way the atmosphere is you don’t talk about that...because we’re just not as open minded as we say we are....There’s no way to oppose what the common opinion is without sticking your neck out and having to brush up against people who are not particularly congenial. Given the above factors raised by Phyllis Rickter, and liberal yet thoughtful nature of the Madison Report, there no monolithic view of U-U’s on abortion. At the same time, is clear that President Schulz is correct in stating that overwhelming majority of U-U’s would be called pro-choice, 3 allowing for much diversity within that camp. UNITARIAF A s. pro-choir Among th clear, st though h James Lu School, I Pro-choi¢ Harvard, U-U minis Choice 5 however, and he h While hi represen‘ Pro abortion interest Scheme In In The Reflecti Westion ahorticm 66 UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST THEOLOGIANS ON ABORTION .A significant majority of Lkdtarian Universalists are pro—choice. This includeS'thevchurch’s clergy and.theologians. Among the U—U theologians, Dr. Betty Hoskins represents a clear, strong voice in favor of the pro-choice position. Even though he has never written about the issue, the Rev. Dr, James Luther Adams, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Divinity School, Unitarian Universalism's foremost theologian, is also pro-choice..77 The Rev. Dr. George Huntston Williams, also of Harvard, is an exception, however. He is one of the very few U—U ministers, and the only U-U theologian opposed to the pro— choice stance. He is clearly a distinct minority. He is, however, one of Unitarian Universalism’s foremost scholars, nd he has published extensively on the issue. Accordingly, hile his work is clearly an exception to the norm, it is epresentative of the diversity within Unitarian Universalism. Professor Hoskins is the author of numerous articles on bortion. Trained as a Molecular Biologist, she has a strong nterest in bioethics. She is an Associate Professor of cience at the Massachusetts College of Art. In her 1989 article "Reflections On Theology And Ethics n The Struggle For Choices: Unitarian Universalist eflections On The Abortion Debate," Hoskins examined how estions are looked at and decisions made regarding ortion. Hoskins believes that society in general is highly polari apart. opposi T theolc subord commar breeds eXpens these again: possik right i "affil OptiOI resou] throng rGSha] addre: i POsit; to a , i l i 67 polarized, and that world views are moving further and further apart. Hoskins uses the ladder and.the circle to symbolize the opposing views. The ladder is seen, as the symbol of‘ most ‘western theological and political thinking. It "assumes managers and subordinates, leaders and followers, working leEi chain of command with a hierarchy of classes.“8 It is a system that breeds competition and assumes one person gains at another’s expense. Religious and philosophical literature are based on these same hierarchical concepts. These structures work against any search for common ground and even against the possibility for dialogue since one person or group must be right and the other wrong.79 The circle is the ladder’s polarity. It symbolizes "affiliation, self‘ esteem, for' all individuals, multiple options, collaborative leadership, and abundance of resources."80 There are threads of the circle that run through society, and it is those threads that can be used to reshape society and reform the questions so they can be .ddressed. According to Hoskins, U-Us are in a particularly unique asition to contribute to the social dialogue and move things > a circle paradigm: Our pluralism and our respect for individuals speak to the dilemmas. And we have a long and respected history of political action for social justice in human rights....Unitarian Universalist goals include lifting up and respecting many points of VleW, encouraging Unitarian Universalists to People stories L< changer same ti tIhestic formula abortia Tl hhdersi hierarv ex6min: aThins bihmed Up by 1 The s hhderg ch°iCe about , as if‘ 68 participate as they choose, working knowledgeably in a public movement that calls forth and responds to all our being, moving toward consensus. Our goal is not one controlling norm for our congregations or our members....the goal is to expand thinking and caring in a way in which many people can and will embrace. The goal is a collaborative movement that displays the interdependent web of all being, a world that is ongoing and life sustaining and respectful of all life forms.81 eople of all generations need to build bridges and share ories, experiences and assumptions, she concludes. Looking at abortion, one must realize that the world has anged drastically in the 20 years since Roe V. Wade. At the me time, the dialogue around abortion has looked at the same estions, but they are questions which need to be re- rmulated.82 Hoskins points to ten major differences in the Jortion dialogue between 1969 and 1989. The first difference is that there is a better derstanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the Roe Wade approach. The legal case was argued from a very erarchical, patriarchal, adversarial, legalistic mode. It amined rights of the fetus vs. the mother and pitted them .inst one another. The issues are getting more complex with medical advances which will "only amplify the problems set by pitting rights against each other."83 second difference concerns developing' a Jbetter :rstanding of the emotional component of procreative ces. While people often have very difficult decisions ; what choices to make, we know that people usually feel ’ they made the right choices: Tl a bette Gillige find n satisfa an eth: A an inc1 in Con: women 1 take I their ; in Con as the Over t being beeone theolo has be "We at 69 We also know how driven people can feel to prove their fertility. We know how unwelcoming the world can be, to a new child, even a chosen child. We know hOW deeply the anti-abortion people believe in the rightness of their cause, and that their stance must result from life experiences that left deep grief and rage."“ The third difference, according to Hoskins, stems from better understanding of how women choose. Because of Carol illigan, Mary Daly and others, more is known about how women ind meaning through talking and arriving at mutually atisfactory decisions: "We reason within a surround, within n ethic of caring and responsibility."85 A fourth difference relates to the role of men. There is n increased awareness of the role and responsibility of men .n conception. Research in the past focused almost solely on romenpreventingpregnancy: "But.we have not insisted that.men ake responsibility for their part in conception, channel heir sexual and aggressive energies, and act as moral agents n concert with women."8‘5 Hoskins’ fifth difference concerns the basis of misogyny ; the root of much opposition to abortion has become clear rer the last 20 years. "Women continue to be punished for ring sexual, procreative, and powerful."m' Sixth, along with misogyny, the role of religion has come more visible. Traditional "white European male eology" reflects male experience and male lives. Religion 3 been used as a tool for one to have power over another. a are all born of woman, and much of religion deals with that uncon cattle pe readings include h with natu: Sever abortion different compassio lacks a c The implicati impact of distribut time, the human, pe The and ambi aWareneSs self.dete and its 1 Beverly W procreati female?“ HOS) not Gwen 7O hat uncomfortable thought. . . .Ownership of wife, daughter, and attle permits physical abuse and incest according to some eadings of scripture. However, our religious roots also nclude healthful threads, which speak of living in harmony ith nature and other creatures."88 Seventh, the differently abled have had an impact on the ortion issue. There is increased visibility of those 'fferent from the norm. There may be an increase in mpassion that affects abortion decisions, yet society still cks a commitment to these individuals.89 The eighth and ninth differences relate to the worldwide plications of birth choices and the definitions used. The pact of such worldwide issues as over population and uneven .stribution of resources are better understood. At the same .me, there is intense discussion about terms such as live, man, person, and sacred.90 The last difference Hoskins examines is the complexity i ambivalence of life/death decisions. There is more areness of such decisions. "The issues are life choices, Lf-determination, and caring for the earth, its communities [its individuals. We need new slogans. We need to attend to 'erly Wildung Harrison's question, What am I to do about the creative power that is mine by virtue of being born ale?"91 Hoskins also discusses context. She examines whether or everyone needs to agree. Her answer is simply no. Each facet c whole 5 import: plural: provide reshapc over. 5 compr01 H. be som: absolu- feelin for U-l unsati of Own "In or Morton altern thEir "ten Celeb: h iSsueE must i: K“Owls i“hunt; 71 acet of the abortion debate— legal, social, political has a hole spectrum of views within it. Each of those views is an mportant part of the struggle. She believes that the luralistic approach, although difficult, is most likely to rovide clarity. There is room for both the reformer trying to eshape the system and the revisionist who wants to start er. That way there can be "polar positions from which we can mpromise. "92 Her next point focuses on authority. Does there need to someone in charge? Some believe in an absolute God. Some in solute rules or law. Still others in their own reason and eling. Hoskins advocates a pluralistic approach appropriate I U-Us: "if all the usual ways of questioning lead to muddy, asatisfactory answers, change the question.“8 The concept ' ownership and the fear of women’s power must be examined: n order to visualize, shatter, exorcise or blot out (Nelle rton’s terms) destructive patriarchal images of ownership, ternatives must be stated."%’Women and men must both share eir stories of hardship and of difficult decisions, and ”5 Choices must be recognized and all new endings.‘ ,ebrated and new rituals devised. We must also recognize the interconnection of all ethical ues. The decision to abort or bring life into the world t be made in the context of scarcity, violence and hunger. Nledge of the holocaust and other forms of brutality and imanity affect a woman's decision. A woman must "though potenti communi child i drug a: theory differe if we I S] All 1i offim means 1 must r eXperi belief rather other: are ma H Plum] h 72 :houghtfully see if she can covenant to support a particular tential life, and if she can assemble a supportive mmunity. It seems an unwise use of resource, to raise a ild for 18 or 19 years, then kill it in military actions or ug and alcohol related accidents...Much of our political a eory begins with an assumption of scarcity...what fferent society results if we assume the earth.gives freely, we cooperate with it.W% She also encourages the recognition that life is sacred. 1 life forms are on a continuum that stretches through all time. We must reSpect other life. Part of respecting life ns choosing whether it is brought into this world. We also st respect the people in the anti-abortion movement. Their perience and fear must be heard: "I think our religious .iefs require us to listen to them, to hear them into speech :her than into vituperation, to avoid shouting down each er’s points. To try to grasp why our opponents are as they may be a positive strategy.m” Hoskins concludes her article with a description of U-U ralism: We aspire to: -Listen to other’s stories, hearing each other into speech. -Operate with clusters of values. -Support every individuals life choices. -Welcome each child that arrives, supporting her or him in community. -Be empowering. -Form coalitions. -Reduce the either/or, deal with things in their full moral complexity and with assumption of abundance. -Be Thi thi pur The Divinity Founding grOUp tt right-to He "Religio 0n Abort condomin State ea A r Parents I three mu Aut as Shi deg con in for or 9119 her by fru Pat nor an; inc Whi 73 -Be participants, held within the interdependent web of all being. This is our current opportunity to live fully in this world, to apply our religiouszprinciples and purposes to life-- let us grasp it!9 * * * The Rev. Dr. George Williams is Hollis Professor of ivinity at Harvard University and a U-U minister. He is also ounding President of Americans For Life, a legally oriented roup that Williams says argues more reasonably than other ight-to-life groups . 99 He has written numerous articles about abortion. In 'Religious Residues And Presuppositions In the American Debate n Abortion," Williams envisions the creation of a "sacred :ondominium" or co-sovereignty where the progenitor and the tate each exercise its co-sovereignty over the fetus. A relationship exists, he believes, among the potential arents, society, and the fetus, and that the rights of all iree must be examined: Authority over unborn life can best be understood as a ,primordial condominium ‘with preponderance shifting now to the state, now to the progenitor, depending upon the circumstances. Unless indeed we continue to insist on this implicitly sacred and inherently indissoluble condominium, one can foresee in some future society, in effect statist or feminist, that the state alone could demand eugenic or even demographic abortion on the one hand, or on the other that the mother could acquire by legal concession that complete control over the fruit of her womb which was once exercised in patriarchal society alone by the sire. She would, moreover, be facilitated in the assimilation of arrogation of virtually sole control by the increased availability of chemical abortifacients which would enable her, if she so willed, to act He argr the rig state a while r also p1 role t state a in case 1 having mmc‘m .+n.+-rnsrro*dom H‘o—o. n by a abortj State 74 without the approbation of her doctor or even her mate. Both of these extremes, statist and feminist, are abhorrent for most Christians to contemplate. But a completed Christian theory of the politics of abortion should recognize the rights alike of the mother, the fetus, and society at large. argues that the most humane way must be found to balance 2 rights of the fetus, the mother, and the state. Both the ate and the parents have a stake in the matter. The state, .le recognizing that individuals have some right to privacy, ,0 protects the family and the individual, and has a major The e through education and other social institutions. te also reserves the right.to interveneztijrotect children cases of abuse.101 He describes this progenitorial political condominium as ing the potential for being: a uniquely American contribution to establishing a balance between individual and. professional autonomy and general social control. In the ideal situation the authority of the progenitor(s) and of society would be balanced in the normal presumption of mutual concern (personal and abstract) for the prospective child as heir and citizen. But in certain instances...the state could find occasion to withdraw from the condominium to allow the mother or the parents together to make a self- sacrificial decision in accordance with their ideals (religious or other). In other instances, the state could feel obliged to maximize its role or prevail in the condominium to protect, sometimes the fetus from the parents, sometime the mother from the imperiling fetus (if she calls for help) .102 Once the condominium is set up, disputes would be handled medical court established in the hospitals performing ions. Under typical circumstances, the mother and the would each be represented by a medical magistrate. The state’s the fa protect such as situat: violatc woman : Ti profes worker law, w court. outsid would and s backgr Serve b otherm panel pr°Pei rathe, aSseS, help : ah ah 75 tate’s magistrate would serve as "advocate and defender of he fetus," while the mother’s magistrate 'would aid in rotecting her rights as "limited sovereign."103 In cases uch as rape, or when the woman is under the age of majority, ituations where the sovereignty' of the 'woman. has been iolated, a form of "regency" would be set up to assist the man and act on her behalf.104 The medical magistrates would.be assisted by a variety of ofessionals including lawyers, psychiatrists and social rkers, and clergy. Lawyers, who would specialize in medical w, would serve as moderators and arbiters for the medical urt. They ‘would establish. any .necessary contacts 'with itside institutions, such as the courts. In addition, they >uld expedite the cases and keep the records. Psychiatrists 1d social workers would be responsible for providing ckground information and social insight. The clergy would rve as counselors for the parents and as ethicists.105 Williams writes: "all these persons, professional and nerwise, are not to be thought of collectively either as a iel of specialists seeking some consensus or as a court >per with judge, jury, and advocate seeking a verdict, but her as a confrontation of two sovereigns, clarifying and essing their respective rights and duties with professional 9 from various quarters."106 The condominium would be used if there is doubt whether abortion should be allowed. Williams believes there are several action b1 the moth condomin: valid. I whether 1 believes aborted aproblei particul and prev. hY handi rape, if Produce retarded Situatio Pregnanc distress nearest Satisfie Charge c tho leg; nonfatt Wi] dial Wit 76 everal cases where an abortion would be acceptable, upon ction by the condominium. The first is to save the life of he mother.107 The second is in the case of rape. Here the ondominium would determine whether the charge of rape was alid. If it was, it would be up to the mother to decide ether to carry the fetus to term. In the case of incest, he lieves that society should take precedence and the fetus orted to protect society and the family.108 In the case of problem with the fetus, he believes the condominium would be rticularly useful in both protecting the parents, the fetus, d preventing a situation where the value of life is decided handicap or birth defect.109 In an instance of statutory ape, if the woman could not have known that her body would roduce a fetus, through either being too young or mentally :tarded, then the pregnancy could be terminated.110 A final tuation where abortion might be warranted is in adulterous egnancies. "In terms of both moral offense and psychological stress an adulterous pregnancy is for the husband the arest equivalent. of rape. for 'the *woman....after' being :isfied by blood tests in order to rule out a deceptive trge or claim, and then leave the sole authority with the . legal partners, in this case with the offended husband- -father in the prevailing role."111 Williams sees his sacred condominium as being able to l with "difficult problems in this area without repudiating venerable Judeo-Christian and humanistic tradition in law, medicir the uni complet genetir the wa: new 51' the 31' H-rrsf*fiOOl—'Srfmpal-”DJOC'—‘0rt Preset feminf 0f Prc belien Sel‘ve M. ihter. betwe 77 iicine, and religion concerning the right to protection of = unborn fetus, now understood never so clearly before as a ' nplete human being from the moment of the setting of the metic code in the first fusion of the successful sperm and e waiting ovum."112 He believes the condominium would allow I 7 situations to be dealt with while defining and limiting e situations where abortion would be acceptable: the vaster number yearly reported or surmised of cases of abortion or attempts at abortion for any less compelling reasons would not fall outside the concept of the condominium. They would instead be constrained by it. Society, becoming automatically a partner in every new condominium as soon as life is conceived, should be ever more vigilant in its duty through its representatives (jurists, doctors, social workers, and clergymen (sic)) to safeguard the life of the innocent fetus lest the perceptible moral evolution toward increased concern for unborn life over more than two millennia of our civilization be suddenly reversed, all in the name of human dignity and freedom, by a technologically potent, affluent, and strangely harsh generation, which would presume to dismiss as "sectarian" in the context of legislation or judicial appeal the immense testimony of our common past. While the idea of the sacred condominium was first ented 20 years ago, and differed greatly from the pro- nist, pro-choice Views of a majority of U-U’s, the views rofessor*Williams on.abortion have changed very little. He eves that his theory of the "sacred condominium,": "would a well before the forces set to change or overturn Roe V. ...I regret that some legislator didn’t pick up on that 'esting model."114 He continues to believe in the tension en the rights of mother and state: " I can see the most humane here... about because from t1 TH letter- with a years. right thorouc presen‘ Pro-chi even, disagr. right Spent 1 He Saw Hill n do so parth‘ so I d allien . °f the think. 78 nane way, most reasonable because there are two rights :e.. .one could argue it both ways. I think the argument >ut the fetus, the mother, and society is fundamental :ause it’s part of our very being. We’re shaped this way >m the start."115 While Prof. Williams’s name continues to be on the :ter- head of Americans United For Life, he does not agree ;h all that the right-to-life movement has done in recent rs. "I am emotionally distressed {by the tactics of many ht to life groups}. I think it should be argued more oughly. I think both sides could improve their sentations, but I guess there is nothing comparable on the —choice side to the, I suppose you would call it violence a, the very rigorous protests as in Wichita."116 He also agrees strongly with the analogy of holocaust used by some it to life groups, but not with the idea behind it. He 1t.his junior'year (1934-1935) at.therniversity' f Munich. aw Hitler first-hand, and because of that experience, he not use the term holocaust in reference to abortion. To 3 is "an affront to all those who have suffered, Jews in icular. The whole world has suffered from that holocaust, don’t endorse the use of that term. The concept is not ttO me because it’s the setting aside of certain aspects e human race or certain human beings as sub-human, and I that is what is argued in that metaphor ofholocaust."117 PI of chur the st particr require out tha point c a model women.’ even t} as liba H-I-thSP’.:_3‘.r-t0 treate 79 Professor Williams is also concerned with the separation church and state and with women’s rights. He believes that = state can go too far in preventing birth. He is I‘ rticularly disturbed by the Chinese government which [uires abortion.118 In addressing women’s rights, he points 1 that he does not put the wall in the abortion issue at the -nt of life of the mother— "I find in my sacred condominium model for legitimating several kinds of violences against en."119 Professor Williams perceives himself as liberal, n though it’s difficult to comprehend his views on choice liberal: Pro- choice really means wanting to preserve a choice for the child. It doesn’t mean that will happen. Today it really means women’s rights. I feel that the liberalism to which I fall heir ...I’m a part of that. In many respects I would be called a liberal. I would like to feel that my concern here is embraced within the range of what liberals stand and fight for....I feel that it’s unfortunate that women’s rights surged at the same time as this concern....I believe therefore the sensibilities of society were involved, not only the little child. emerging, but the ‘nurses the doctors, the expectant mother herself. I believe there is a partial denial of something...that is ultimately the very feminine, that's the very center of a woman’s being. It can be suspended in the drive for women’s rights, which I endorse, and have been part of. I think there’s a confusion about women’s rights...In the tradition of the race men fought and they died in large numbers...and the corresponding sacrifice was childbirth. That is not a great danger today....I’m also opposed to women fighting. I believe the distinction of genders is important."120 es the churches as needing to look at the way women are ed: that at to the topic.1 P1 movemel PUblisl group.1 group: inform; hht ot] 0r wel G among theolc. a Seoc Church 80 it’ 5 important for society, for the church, the synagogue the religious communities to...rethink and rid ourselves of the patriarchialism and all the other oppressive features of the family life. It’s just incredible what’s been permitted in the name of all the laws of the Scripture in terms of women’s suffering. But the solution is not necessarily the exact opposite— making almost men out of women.121 * J: * Williams agrees with Bill Schulz, President of the UUA, t abortion was not discussed much within the Church prior the 1961 merger. Birth control was a more visible ic.”2 Professor Williams stated that there is an organized ement in the UUA against abortion that until four years ago lished a newsletter. Williams said "I believe it’s a small up."123 William Schulz also believes it to be a small p: "there may be a small group of U-Us, a relatively rmal group, that supports the so called pro-life position, other than George (Williams) I don’t know other ministers ell known leadership people."124 George Williams is clearly in the significant minority g U-Us in general, and certainly among clergy and logians, on the abortion issue. Nonetheless, he writes as cond generation Unitarian minister from within the U-U ch as an opponent of abortion. He is symbolic of the wide rsity of opinions within the UUA on many issues. THE FUT Tl great c William Schulz the gel libertj HOO€