which I should serve tomorrow, might itself be undenominational, at
last to the degree implied by my conception of what I have called
the community church. By this I meant that the church should
proclaim [16] as its primary interest and aim identification with,
and service of, the people of its community, to the subordination,
and, if necessary, the ending of its connection with persons of
various and scattered communities who have no other bond of union
than that of a single denominational inheritance. Was I wrong when I
ventured the assertion at the meeting of our Society, that in this
church we have already moved far in this direction? Unconsciously,
in the last dozen years, it seems to me, we have been moving out of
the denomination, into the community. Nearly every interest in this
parish is a community and not a denominational interest. Our natural
affiliations as a church in this city have not been so much with
churches of our own denomination, as with churches of various
denominations distinguished like ourselves as predominantly civic,
or community, institutions. This congregation is an independent
congregation. If the Unitarian name adheres to it at all, it is to
the embarrassment of those whose Unitarianism is their pride, and to
the confusion of those who, not Unitarians either by birth or
conviction, desire to join us in spirit and active work. For years,
like "the chambered nautilus," we have been outgrowing our
denominational shell, and seeking "more stately mansions." Is it not
time, now, that we left this "outgrown shell," and became at last
the full and free community institution of which I speak? Should we
not at least clear ourselves of ancient entanglements to such degree
that we may invite people openly and honestly to come into our
portals not because they want to profess themselves Unitarians, but
because they want to confess themselves lovers and servants of
mankind?