Hi Friends -
“Perhaps this is not the time to begin to form the different types of associations with the Unity field work, but, at least, we can now agree that we will work toward diversity in Unity. We can agree that Unity is large enough to have a place for all of us in it. We can agree when we write for the Voice of the UMA and when we come back together for the meeting of the Council of Committees in January that we will work together for the good of all with a secure place for each person who is sincerely trying to follow the guidance of his indwelling Lord and serve the spiritual needs of mankind as he feels directed.”—Warren Kreml, December 1965
This quote from Warren Kreml was written in December 1965 for the Unity Minister’s Association Newsletter and, as it says, it was written in anticipation of the “Council of Committees in January.” Here is why Kreml wrote it.
Unity had launched an ambitious 25-year plan for the educational expansion of youth called “The Great Vision” and would soon launch a “creative expriment” of adult human potential called The Omega Center with Warren Kreml as the director. Both programs were focused on developing a spirituality much broader than Unity’s traditional teachings, they were met with great resistance in Unity and were eventually rejected.
Kreml’s article in the December 1965 UMA Newsletter is an appeal for the tolerance of diversity within Unity. Although the immediate issues were not the educational programs, Kreml was addressing a mindset in Unity that led to intolerance of diversity. Kreml was convinced that the broader spirituality taught by these programs were “in complete agreement with the ideas of Charles Fillmore” and that they would be “in tune with the times.”1 The problem for Kreml and the progressives was that power was held by Charles R Fillmore and the board of trustees of Unity School, who, at that time, envisioned a far more conservative future for the Unity movement.
What is important is the way that Kreml appeals for tolerance and diversity. He writes “Let us plan for diversity within Unity. The Unity idea is big enough to contain us all. Let us plan to include all of us, even with our many and divergent interests and preferences. Let us create several organizations, functioning independently yet co-operatively within the great family of the Unity field activity.“ Kreml devotes about half of his three page article describing his idea of what I have called “institutional pluralism” in Unity. The quote at the top of this post was preceded by:
“The approach outlined briefly above would not split Unity. There would not have to be rejection, hurt feelings, or barriers that would exclude communication and good will. We could maintain respect for one another, a spirit of oneness, and actually give help and encouragement to one another even though we are following slightly different paths. The Unity idea has potential for infinite expansion. Let us allow it to expand into all the exciting possibilities it contains.”
Why is this important today?
The “Council of Committees” in Kreml’s article has evolved into what was known as the “Winter Meetings” and now is known as the “Annual Summit.” The Unity Worldwide Ministries’ 2019 Annual Summit begins this week in Houston. It is billed as a “gathering for inspiration, information idea sharing and connection” and this year’s conversation is “The Changing Face of Church,” a discussion that includes the present exploration of the Unity movement: “2030 Focusing Forward and One Unity.”
It is important because, fifty-eight years later, we are facing the same problems and we continue to ask “How do we focus forward and establish one Unity?”
Kreml’s argument is that “We have problems that have been with us for years for which we have not worked out constructive, workable, permanent solutions.”
Kreml’s observation is that “There is no need for all this continued disagreement, or for the paralysis of indecision. We should not have to waste our energies in argument, or mistrust or fear each other... Practically speaking, though, we have made one decision and reaffirmed it over and over again. We have decided that there should be diversity in Unity; that Unity ministers should be free to follow their own inner guidance. This is our decision; this is our consistent consensus.”
And Kreml’s solution is to ask “Then why not accept the decision, carry it to its logical conclusion, implement it with appropriate action and organization?” He answers the question, as quoted, by suggesting that Unity “create several organizations, functioning independently yet co-operatively within the great family of the Unity field activity.”
Here’s my point.
My sense is that progressive advocates of a broader spirituality in Unity favor “focusing forward” and evolving our organizational structure to “One Unity.” I believe they will resist “creating several organizations, functioning independently yet co-operatively within the great family of the Unity field activity.”
I only wish to say that stronger collaboration as One Unity may be beneficial in terms of operational efficiency and organizational control, but, as Kreml says, there will be a price to pay in terms of diversity and tolerance. Advocates of a broader spirituality in Unity may not see the problem because power no longer rests with Charles R Fillmore and Unity's more conservative wing. But tolerance is tolerance and diversity is diversity.
The solution, as Kreml argues, is carrying Unity’s decision for tolerance and diversity to its logical conclusion by “creating several organizations, functioning independently yet co-operatively within the great family of the Unity field activity.” This is what I have called The Rise of Institutional Pluralism in Unity. Here is my conclusion:
Successful religious movements shift from monolithic structures to institutional pluralism. They replace a Vatican-style form of organization and governance with multiple, independent and free organizations that seem to be out of control. But they aren’t out of control at all. They are free and the their freedom is the ability to compete in a religious marketplace based on the Principle of Giving and Receiving. No one is privileged, no one is protected. Everyone serves and if one organization fails then it doesn’t bring down the entire movement.
Here is Kreml’s way forward:
“To achieve diversity within the Unity family we are going to have to think, feel, and act with maturity. We are like a child growing up in a family. The child comes to the time of independence when he realizes that his needs and his interests are leading him to stand free from his parents. If this child is growing toward maturity he is able to do this and still maintain love, respect, and good communication.“—Warren Kreml, December 1965
In 1966 Charles R. Fillmore recognized that the field ministries of Unity would be best served by allowing them to form their own organization to tend to their own needs and aspirations. That was the first step toward institutional pluralism in Unity.
Charles R Fillmore's decision grew out of increased frustration in creative people like Warren Kreml who wished to explore innovative pathways in Unity. Charles R Fillmore recognized that multiple, independent and free organizations, collaborating but not privileged, are the best expression of Unity’s foundational value of freedom, tolerance and diversity. I believe that is Unity’s best expression of “focusing forward as One Unity.”
Sunday, February 3, 2019
