A Sermon by Richard Pardo

January 23, 2011

In many ways, one could say that July 1, 2011 will be the first day of the next 175 years of Unitarian-Universalist contributions to the city of Chicago.  It will mark the beginning of a period of significant change and opportunity for this congregation. Our senior minister for the past 12 years will retire and we will begin the process of searching for a new minister.  We are exploring a major fund-raising activity and a major restoration of our property.  These changes provide us the opportunity to make this the beginning of a new era for our mission and ministry.  Will we?  

In the past 175 years, this congregation can look with pride on many contributions to the life of the city and, maybe more importantly, to the life of individual participants in this congregation.  What will the next 175 years bring?  What will we identify as the purpose and goals for ourselves and for this congregation?  To answer these questions as an institution will require each of us to answer the same questions individually and personally.  Only when we have our own vision of the future, can we hope to see a vision for First U.  Only then can you think about what your role will be in that future and what you expect to gain from that process.   I will explore some of my visions for the future at First U and I hope you will help me with yours.

Good Morning!  

I’m so glad to see so many of you on such a cold day.  I certainly appreciate the support your attendance implies.  That is an important part of what we as a Society do for each other.  I’m sure it will continue to be one of the most important reasons that I am a member of this church.

This is the third time that I have stood in this pulpit and shared some of my thoughts on a subject.  The subject I would like to explore today is a crucial one for this church community.  Interspersed with some factual observations, you may be taken aback by an occasional suggestion that you’re not sure you agree with.  Or maybe you’ll be sure you don’t agree.  Let me assure you those views represent only your speaker’s ideas (and may not even represent him all of the time).  They have, in no way, been endorsed by any Society organization or the Society’s leadership

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads requiring us to make a number of significant decisions over the next couple of years.  These decisions have the potential to set our path for many years going forward.  We will soon embark on a ministerial search process to find a successor to Rev. Dr. Grey who will retire this summer after leading our congregation for nearly twelve years.  That is one of the longer tenures for a senior minister here.  In addition, we all have been involved in the struggle to decide the proper role for Fenn House in our future.   In addition to that property, the main Sanctuary and RE building are in need of significant restoration and improvements to make them an asset to our congregation as we carry out our programs for members and the community.  How to finance those improvements is a critical decision.  The choices we make on each of these questions must be guided by how we see our congregation in the coming years.  That vision should impact these very specific decisions that we will make and provide us the context within which we act.

In order to give us a little perspective on our present situation, I want to briefly reflect on the early years of this congregation and give you a feel for the  difficulties encountered and the enthusiasm and commitment brought by the congregants and ministers as they worked to get this (or any) congregation off the ground.  Sustaining a congregation can require an equal level of commitment.  

I don’t think I have ever been a member of any other organization that is 175 years old.  My professional organization, the American Physical Society, was founded in 1899, only 112 years ago.  Illinois is a little older, becoming a state in 1818, 193 years ago.  Let’s first take a quick look back to the beginning of First U.

It’s quite difficult to imagine what this area was like 175+ years ago.  As many of you know, Jean Baptiste Point du Sable was recorded as the first non-Native American living in the area.  He operated a trading post at the mouth of the Chicago River in 1790 and is often identified as the founder of Chicago.  But he sold his property and left Chicago by 1800 moving to St. Charles Missouri where he died in 1818.

Fort Dearborn was constructed a few years later, in 1803, but nine years later it was destroyed along with the loss of nearly everyone at the fort early in the War of 1812.  The area around the Chicago River remained largely uninhabited until 1816.  The fort was finally rebuilt in 1818, and by 1829 about 100 persons lived in the ‘Chicago area’.  

This was an extremely dynamic period for the fledgling community of Chicago.  The town of Chicago was first identified by a survey plat filing by James Thompson on August 3, 1830.  Cook County was created in 1831 and Chicago was identified as the county seat although there was no formal government of Chicago at that time.  On August 10, 1833 the town of Chicago held its first Trustee election.  28 votes were cast.  Chicago wasn’t incorporated as an Illinois city until March 4, 1837.  In 1839 Chicago had a population of >4,000 and by 1860 well over 100,000 inhabitants lived in Chicago.  Chicago was exploding with people!

Before the incorporation of the City of Chicago, the first Unitarian service was held on June 26, 1836 by the passing-through minister Rev. Charles Follen, a radical abolitionist who had been fired the year before from Harvard for his strong anti-slavery views.  It was organized on two hours notice because of the interrupted travel plans of Rev. Follen, his wife, Eliza Lee Cabot Follen, and their traveling companion, a popular writer, Harriet Martineau.  This first meeting was held in the still incomplete Lake House, an elegant hotel across the Chicago River from Ft. Dearborn near where the Wrigley Building stands today.  A respectable crowd was assembled and seated on planks and railroad trestles.  It’s not recorded what the Rev. Follen said on June 26, but that evening a second meeting was held where $20,000 in land and money was pledged to underwrite a new Unitarian congregation.   

It is interesting to note that just two weeks earlier, on June 11, 1836, the first Universalist service had been held in town and that group also organized themselves as a congregation.  The Universalists, in parallel, also eventually developed a strong congregation which erected its first building in 1844 near Clark and Washington.  Even then the Unitarians and Universalist viewed each other as somewhat kindred spirits.  The two groups often held joint services in the 1830s as both struggled to grow their groups and raise funds for their own buildings.

The $20,000 pledged that first night was never fully collected (probably partly due to the Panic of 1837) and probably also due to the intrinsic difficulty of turning pledges into cash.  Therefore, the Society continued to meet in rented space.  Most of the 1830s found the Unitarians meeting in the “Saloon Building”, a large meeting space on the river at Clark and Lake, up until the first Society Church Building was completed in 1841 under the leadership of the first settled minister, Rev. Joseph Harrington who had arrived in late 1839.  This first building for the Society was located on Washington between Clark and Dearborn.  The total cost of the building and land was $4258 ($1,047,468 today) of which $2888 had been donated through the efforts of Rev. Harrington from East Coast Unitarians.  Clearly Rev. Harrington’s East Coast connections and fund raising abilities were a critical element of moving the Society forward.  

In 1844 a steeple was constructed on the church to house an, already purchased, large bell.  The steeple cost the Society $458 and the bell became the nearly official clock of the young city.  The bell, the only one of its kind in the city, was used for the next ten years as a fire bell as well as ringing each day at 7 AM, noon, 6 PM, and 9 PM.  It was the regulator for the city; marking the start and the end to workdays.  

During the 1840s and 1850s, the Society generally flourished.  An important reason was certainly due to its strong anti-slavery stand attracting like-minded people to its services.  The congregation’s growth required a number of expansions to the original building over this period.  In the early 1850s a sexton was hired to clean the building, ring the bell and collect the bills.  Henry Tucker was ‘hired’ as the organist and the choir was paid $250.  In 1855 the Treasurer was paid and the music committee spent over $1000.  Yet even in this era there were difficult economic periods.  

Near the end of the 1850s, First Unitarian committed to starting three new congregations.  As it turned out, only one was actually formed - Unity Church (today known as Second Unitarian Church).  Due to the growth of the congregation over this period it was decided to build a new church, which became known as the Church of the Messiah.  It was not a particularly good time to make such energy consuming changes – on the eve of the Civil War as well as continued economic turmoil.  But after much struggle the building was completed and dedicated in July 1863.  Unfortunately, just two months prior to that dedication a fire swept through the original church destroying nearly everything in the building.   The economic pressures continued through this period and by 1866, just 3 years after the new building was dedicated, the society was “destitute of money” and “almost in a state of collapse”.  This was completely reversed by the arrival of a new minister, Rev. Robert Laird Collier, and ex-Methodist minister.  For reference, the number of communicants in 1866 was about 100.

Now wind back a few years to 1857.  That year the first major social program of the church was started:  the Ministry-at-Large.  It was independently chartered by the state and was the only private agency for general relief in Illinois at that time.  The first director was the Rev. William H. Hadley.  By the end of the first year, the Ministry supported a Sabbath School of 200 pupils, a six-day-a-week evening school with an enrollment of 180, a sewing school where hundreds of garments were made for free distribution to the poor, an employment agency, and an agency which found homes for destitute children and older persons.  Hadley was followed by the Society’s first formal Minister-at-Large, Robert Collyer, in 1859.  The Ministry-at-Large at times dwarfed the Society’s other activities (sound familiar?).  Robert Collyer was a dynamic person, soon handling multiple tasks beyond the Ministry at Large.  He looms large in the development of Chicago Unitarianism in that era.  Within a year of Collyer’s arrival, he had also accepted the Ministry position at Unity Church ( many years later renamed the Second Unitarian Society of Chicago) and over the next few years both Unity and First Unitarian helped finance the operation of the Ministry-at-Large.  In fact under Collyer’s leadership, Unity at times became the largest Unitarian church in the area.  It seems that Collyer held a broad vision of Unitarianism and didn’t see Unity and First U competing but rather collaborating.  In fact he gave the sermon for the cornerstone laying ceremony for the First U’s second building.  But the fire that destroyed the original church building just two months before moving into the new building in 1863 also destroyed the records and equipment of the Ministry-at-Large.  The Ministry never really recovered and died a slow death over the next few years.

What I would like to get across to you with this thumbnail history of our early Society is both the zeal of this community of believers and the nearly insurmountable obstacles that were constantly arising and sabotaging the dreams and visions of this small band of dedicated Unitarians.  I say small, but in fact the numbers participating over those years fluctuated wildly, as did their finances.  After struggling to form a Society in the 1830’s the next 20 years were relatively peaceful.   There was significant minister turnover (none of whom stayed more than 7-8 years) and interspersed among those years were periods of no settled minister.  Thus an important feature of this group was a dedicated core (not necessarily the same people always) that carried the organization through the ‘droughts’.  But equally important were the occasional visionary and dynamic leader who signed on with the local group.  

First was Rev. Follen who inspired the initial organization, and yet was here only for a few days.  
Next was Rev. Joseph Harrington who used his east coast connections to personally raise over half of the funds needed for the first building and then organized the local congregants to raise the remainder.  Without Harrington’s vision and leadership the congregation would not have had the resources or capacity to move forward.  But Harrington was an East Coaster and was never comfortable in Chicago.  Thus surprisingly after driving the construction of the first building, he resigned and returned east only five months after the dedication of the new building!!!  Of course the Society was partially to blame for this since they had great difficulty in paying Rev Harrington his agreed upon salary of $1040 (about $30,000 by the CPI scale factor).

Next was the Rev. Rush Shippen, called in November 1849, who proved to be a dynamic and visionary leader.  Under his leadership the Society grew dramatically, organized the Ministry-at-Large, expanded the building twice, and voted to create three additional Unitarian congregations.   During Shippen’s tenure the Society set in motion the consideration of a new building.

In more recent years, you may be more familiar with the importance of William Wallace Fenn who led the congregation to look toward Hyde Park for its future, Von Ogden Vogt who guided the construction of our present sanctuary, and Leslie Pennington who led “the congregation to commit to racial integration, community conservation and renewal, and the development here of a genuinely interracial community of high standards”.  His and Vogt’s leadership continues to play an important role in shaping our current views of ourselves and even national Unitarianism.  These and our more recent ministers have each contributed to the programs and environment we currently think of as the First Unitarian Experience.  For better or worse, the vision of art and architecture of Vogt still dominates our physical Society and influences our services with this magnificent and imposing edifice and a strong music program.  For many it is a compelling attraction.  But for others it is a statement of our continued subscription to formalized religion – and for some that is not what they are looking for.  

Rev. Dr. Nina Grey has been our senior minister for nearly twelve years now and recently announced that she will retire in July.  Nina has made her mark on us in many ways.  She has officiated at many of our various families most important rituals: weddings, funerals, dedications.  She has shared the joys and sorrows of this congregation and helped many of us to find meaning in those events.   Her abilities in these most human of areas and her empathic leadership have been one of her strongest suits.  She has also initiated a number of new activities in adult RE, in relationships with Meadville-Lombard and in the community serving as President of the HP-KIC.  Internally one of her most successful programs has been the small group ministry project – the Spiritual Pluralism Project.  These are just some of the accomplishments she can look back on with pride.  

But now we will need to think very carefully about the type of minister that will be best for leading the congregation forward in this next phase of our life and development.  Do we want a person who will challenge us to take a more public role on societal issues than we have recently been involved in?  Do we want a minister that focuses even more on personal ministry – ministering to member’s personal issues as necessary?  Do we want a person who is a fiery orator, who challenges the congregants intellectually every Sunday?  Do we want a person who better understands marketing and advertising and grows the congregation to the size we all think it should be?  Do we need to make a dramatic break at this time and head off in a really new direction?

Well of course we want all of those duties - superbly executed – all rolled up into a single person.  It’s not likely to happen.  On top of that their may be some financial constraints that limit our options.  So the search committee will inevitably evaluate the possible candidates against what you tell the committee is your vision for the congregation as well as your personal desires about a meaningful worship experience.

My sense of the ‘right’ next person is one who can build on the steps that we have taken over the last few years.  Certainly today I think we have a much more dynamic youth RE program than when Nina arrived.  Our Sunday services are now better attended and I think generally more interesting.  Institutionally we are doing a better job of welcoming visitors and integrating new members into the life of the church.  I think we are in a better position to present an attractive face to the outside world than we have been for quite some time.  Our next senior minister should complement and enhance our strengths and improve our open door policy to the world.  We must find a way to appeal to the next generation of Chicagoans.  Thus my inclination is to look for someone that looks a little more like John or Lisa Martin-Ettinger and a little less like Richard Pardo or Finley Campbell.  You know Tom Chulak was the last minister who really brought a family to lead this congregation.

Equally important is to use this time to look at our programs and services and proactively consider the possibility of initiating some new programs that would be attractive to a different (younger) clientele.  For example, Nina recently pointed out a new liberal church that has been started by a couple of M-L graduates and ex attendees of FirstU (Dave and Jennifer Owen-O’Quill).   This new congregation is called Micah’s Porch.  It claims to be “a progressive church experience emerging in the Wicker Park neighborhood. At Micah’s Porch we preach and practice a gospel of inclusion welcoming seekers of all types.”  Well in words it sounds similar to what we claim to be.  But if you listen to their podcasts (which we don’t have yet) you will see it is quite different and might seriously appeal to a younger population.  They talk about a diverse music program too:  from Modest Mouse, to Portishead, to Lynyrd Skynyrd).  Even my spell checker didn’t know these names!!!!  And I assure you the music of Lynrd Skynyrd is quite different from the music of Leonard Slatkin.  Should we look for a minister that might want to collaborate on a Wednesday evening service similar to Micah’s Porch?  I think we should consider such innovative, possibly collaborative, ventures.  

Because of the age and condition of our buildings we are at an important crossroads in deciding how to make our physical plant work for us rather than we work for it.  To maintain the current buildings in a condition that will support the programs we want to operate and also reflect positively on our organization from the outside will require a significant investment over the next few years.  Most of us have been very involved in making the first decision in this sequence – whether to keep or sell Fenn House.  I will NOT share my view on this most important topic from here.  That would not be fair.  I do want to acknowledge the huge investment in time, emotional energy and money that so many of you have already put into this issue and will need to continue to do so for quite some time forward.  I also want to acknowledge the high level of honesty, integrity, and sensitivity that has been displayed in these discussions/debates.  I can only wish that our national political discourse could be carried out in a similar climate.   

One final point I do want to make concerning property.  No matter what final decision we make regarding Fenn House, it cannot alone address the need that we face regarding our other two buildings.  Both are in need of significant renovation.  There are many choices and priorities yet to be made concerning them, but there is no question that they are crying out for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent to prepare them for the next century.  I see no way out except for a major capital fund raiser and I see no alternative but to rely on our older members to step up to the plate on this issue.  Of course we welcome all to this finance party, but our younger members have major looming expenses surrounding children, college, and often a lower net income as well as lack of accumulated assets.  I know that the individual capabilities span an immense range and these are general statements.  (In my field we call powers of ten “orders of magnitude” – an apt phrase in this case).  Here Karl Marx had it right.  “From each according to his(her) ability…”.  

Recall, I warned you that these were the views of the speaker and you may not wholly agree with all of them.  But I feel it is time to get this ball rolling.  Would that I were Bill Gates – or God – and could solve this issue with a wave of my pen.

Interestingly when we read about the history of churches, we find that most of the focus of these histories is on the buildings on one hand and on the religious dogmas and outside activities (or lack thereof) on the other. All are extremely important components of local church organizations, but only by inference (reading between the lines) does one get a feel for the community and social aspects of a congregation and how important that was in maintaining a church.  There really are only two reasons that have kept me coming to this church over the years.  One is where else can an atheistic Humanist go and be appreciated or at least tolerated?  

The other is you.  Over the years you have taught me so much about people and human interaction.  I only wish I had learned it 40 years ago.  You have changed me from a backwoods Kentucky near-racist to a person who honestly appreciates, even loves, a Finley Campbell.  You have given me the opportunity to enjoy my own inconsistencies – relish the feel and harmonies of “Take My Hand, Precious Lord” while intellectually rejecting every word I am singing.  I know of no other place that would have allowed me to become this person that stands before you.  

Therefore, it is my goal to maintain this institution so that others coming after me can have their own ‘redemptive’ experience.  My vision is that First Unitarian will build on its strengths and history, but evolve to meet the needs of future generations and congregants.  I hope you agree with me and will resolve to fully participate, with your time, talents and money, in the process that is just getting underway that will transform this Society into an institution ready to go forward into the 21st Century.  Then July 1, 2011 will truly be the first day of the next 175 years for the First Unitarian Society of Chicago.