Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and to expand our vision.
People of other faiths, viewing us from a distance, may be perplexed: What keeps Unitarian Universalists together if they have no central statement of faith, no creed, no commonly accepted source of authority, no one scripture, not even an agreement on the existence of God?!
Sometimes, even those of us within the circle of UUism wonder about this. But, with time, we come to understand that we stay together not because of a commonly held belief system. We are bound together by a process, not a code. And the process of liberal religion is simply stated: (1) An emphasis upon individual freedom in respect to our religious reasoning and beliefs; (2) a faith in the potential for goodness in every human being (no original sin or damnation preached from our pulpits); (3) the use of the democratic method in the regulation of our local and denominational affairs (no hierarchy, no bishop or pope).
In addition to wondering about what keeps us together, outside observers look at our diversity and suggest that we are so broad in our religious understandings that we might be compared to the Amazon Delta -- "200 miles wide and 6 inches deep."
Are we as theologically shallow as our critics might think we are? I think not. But if we try to describe our faith from a traditionalistic stance, that could be the case. We are no longer a religion primarily based upon the Bible. That fact alone removes a common basis of understanding with Christians and Jews. And if we try to argue our religious stance on the basis of biblical understanding, we would be woefully outclassed by the traditionalists.
And yet, a theological dialogue with traditional religion must be maintained, for we must not cast aside our connection with the religious mainstream that gave liberal religion its birth. To sever ourselves from Judaic and Christian beginnings will only reinforce what our critics accuse us of being -- a sect. Sects are factions. Sects are often xenophobic. Sects are usually fringe groups. Sects seldom survive for long.
Mainstream religion (Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism) and Unitarian Universalism need each other. As an Episcopalian priest once said to a colleague of mine: "Perhaps our tradition helps to keep you spiritual; I know that yours helps to keep us honest!" Our freedom from stultifying tradition and doctrine can give example for reformists among the mainstream denominations. In turn, traditionalists can give helpful check to our occasional compulsions to discard all symbolic and intuitive religious references. Rationalism has its limits; in fact, super-rationalism tends toward its own sort of dogmatism. The mind and the heart are equally important ingredients for both traditional and liberal religion.
With all this as prologue, let us examine some aspects of our liberal religion, the better to understand ourselves and the better to draw comparisons with the traditionalists.
There are three religious philosophies most frequently found in Unitarian Universalism: religious humanism, universal theism (pantheism or transcendentalism might be substituted for "theism"), and liberal Christianity. The three philosophies are often interwoven, and some of us might find ourselves in sympathy with one or more of each of the aspects of liberal religion. For us to find a certain religious platform on which to stand doesn't mean the end of our religious questing but a deepening of our insights and understanding.
Each of these philosophies has had its origin at a different time in our UU history. One philosophy did not displace another but simply gave the older philosophy new company, giving UUism a richer diversity.
As Unitarianism took form in the early 19th century, William Ellery Channing was its leading spokesman. He summarized a century of discontent within New England Puritan-Calvinism by proclaiming the unity of God against the Trinity and the humanity of Jesus over the divinity of Christ. At the same time, Hosea Ballou of the Universalists was proclaiming the universal salvation of all souls as opposed to the Calvinistic idea of eternal damnation of sinners and disbelievers. This early Unitarianism and Universalism came to represent what we might call an American form of liberal Christianity that stressed the teachings of Jesus -- love, compassion and service to one's neighbors -- over an emphasis on salvation and the fear of eternal damnation.
This break with tradition brought with it even further changes. A second generation of New England Unitarianism was led by Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, who left what he thought was a stagnated liberal Christianity when he resigned his Boston pulpit. In his view, the divine soul of the universe can be detected in all religions, in nature, and also through one's own experience. Religious meaning should not be contained within only one religion. And so, a sort of universal theism took its place alongside liberal Christianity in our movement. The emphasis was upon a mystical or spiritual power in the universe, not limited by a personal God concept.
Then, in the early years of the 20th century, Unitarian and Universalist leaders represented by John Dietrich, Curtis Reese and Charles Francis Potter advocated that the center of devotion in this modern age must be for human growth and welfare rather than what was, for them, the divisive and questionable idea of God. Humanity must serve humanity first, not God. Religious humanism thus came upon the scene and gained increasing power within Unitarian Universalism until the 1960s.
Let us look first at the most recent philosophy -- religious humanism, which disallows the idea of God as the center of our personal commitment. Humanists feel that nothing so uncertain and disputed as God's existence can provide the unifying and ethical commitment for modern human beings. To be fixated primarily on the God concept directs us away from important and tangible values close at hand. What is really important for human fulfillment is an appreciation of the beauty of this world and the valuing of human creativity through the arts, invention and discourse.
Humanists disallow a childlike dependence upon God's power that encourages passivity and dependency and stifles the human potential. Living our lives in an imaginary relationship with an exalted parent-figure is only another form of psychological regression.
Beyond their criticisms of God-centered religion, humanists maintain that their central commitment is for the fulfillment of human possibilities. Devotion to humanity as it might be is that which commands the religious humanist's passion. Good is defined as the development of the human potential to love, to create and to find greater knowledge. No divine "Thou shalt's" and "Thou shalt not's" are needed to guide human virtue. Human nature is potentially good in the sense that we possess the capability to give and receive love, to know compassion and to perceive and understand our world. Yes, selfishness and violence exist, evil is real. But these failings are not intrinsic to human nature. Meaning in life comes not through religious believing but is the consequence of a life of character guided by values.
Finally, the religious humanist (not secular humanist -- the target of the fundamentalists) would not simply agree with the chauvinistic claim that "Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras). Religious humanists revere the natural world that has conveyed upon us the miraculous gift of life. Humanity is not distinct from the world, but imbedded within the overall life of nature. Human beings are not the center of the universe, but surely they can feel at home within it.
Next, let us look at universal theism. But first, let us look back at humanism from the theist's understanding. The humanist tends to reject the God concept in its weakest form, failing to see that modern traditionalists have also given up an outmoded paternalistic/omnipotent/omniscient God concept. For one to reject such ancient ideas can be part of intellectual growth, but to be stuck in adolescent rebellion can stifle further growth in religious sophistication. The universal theist considers humanism a cynical phase through which one must pass.
A theist would also say that ethics and social action, which seem to be the main concerns of humanism, are thin gruel for feeding the soul and insufficient for genuine religious living. A truly religious life leads naturally toward ethical living and social concern, enhanced by the sense of connectedness to a transcendent power that urges one's conscience toward action against the world's evils.
The universal theist also has criticisms for traditional religions that cling to practices and beliefs entirely outmoded by modern thought and science. Still, it is the task of universal theism to penetrate these barriers and to mine the wisdom contained within those religions.
Central to universal theism is the concept of the divine as the ground of all being and the creative source of life. Within and beyond the various concepts of God is the notion of the divine soul of the universe, a concept of the sacred mystery within all things.
The term "God" or its equivalent is indispensable for understanding of this greater god-concept, full of so many nuances. God is no longer the supernatural god far removed, but the soul of all things apparent in the commonplace for all to perceive. As Emerson said: "Lo, here, lo, there. When it breaks through the human intellect, it is genius; when it breathes through human will, it is virtue; when it flows through human affections, it is love. There is a deep power in which we exist, and whose beatitude is accessible to us."
Finally, let us look at liberal Christianity as it exists within Unitarian Universalism. The liberal Christian would agree with the universal theist's criticisms of humanism. In addition, the liberal Christian would claim that the humanist is all too prone to follow fads, lacking the stability of a faith based upon a connectedness to the holy.
Liberal Christianity would also criticize universal theism as being shallow, playing on the surface of many religious traditions without being deeply involved in any of them. There is no such thing as religion in general. Even if all paths lead to a common goal, one can still walk only on one pathway at a time. Universal theists are condemned to remain on the surface of religion, without roots or definite identity.
Beyond these criticisms of the other two liberal religious philosophies, liberal Christianity interprets the Christian story in the light of modern experience. The task is to free the best within the Christian tradition from the non-essentials. Liberal Christians are open to the revelations of modern biblical and archeological studies and feel no threat from science and modern biology.
Following the understandings of William Ellery Channing, liberal Christians would not make Jesus a god, but would affirm him as being the most God-conscious human in history who was thus able to abandon ego and to affirm others through love. His followers were transformed by his love, and those ancient people perpetuated his memory by creating myths and legends about him. Jesus was fully human and never claimed otherwise; the true meaning of the word "Messiah" was a human being who would manifest God's will and word on Earth. As Messiah, the human Jesus revealed God's love to the world.
Jesus' example as "a man for others" shows how each of us can enter into a fuller selfhood. This is the true salvation, when we become caring and concerned through self-giving love. Christianity, thus understood, is not a doctrine, but a living religious tradition with a symbol and a story.
There you have it -- three major perspectives and philosophies of liberal religion. All are to be found in Unitarian Universalism. Personally, I find values to which I could subscribe in each, as I'm sure you do. However, I think I would fall somewhere between the religious humanist and the universal theist. As I've said to you in past sermons, I consider myself a "humanistic mystic." This, to me, means that it is up to each one of us what we make of our lives. The will and the power and the vision have to come from us, plus lots of perseverance, caring and love. But, as a mystic, I believe that ultimately we are not alone. There is a supportive presence that is available to us if we are but open to it, especially in moments of greatest despair.
In present-day Unitarian Universalism, I would say that the humanist philosophy seems mostly to prevail. Universal theism and liberal Christianity are also vital but much submerged. This, however, does not diminish their importance. With the emergence over the past 20 years of a greater emphasis upon "spirituality," I think that we are evolving into a new liberal religious understanding that will encompass ancient Earth-centered religions as well as the three aspects of religion discussed in this sermon.
Where in the midst of these religious philosophies would you take a stand? As I stated in the beginning, it is important to know one's own religious place in the scheme of things. The stand we take need not be imbedded in concrete. Yet, as the saying goes, "If we don't stand for something, we may fall for anything."
What is important is that we find our place within our liberal religious tradition and then live out our lives in the light of the subsequent growth and discoveries that evolve from such a stand.
Perhaps as a result of our exploration of these liberal religious philosophies we not only place ourselves in the continuum, but we also will be better able to understand where another person in the congregation is coming from.
Unitarian Universalism is not an easy religion. No one will tell you where to stand, what to believe. We must find our place by ourselves. For this difficulty, for this freedom, we must be thankful. We would have it no other way.
So may it be.
* * * * * * * * * *
Note: For much of the thought within this sermon, I am beholden to Dr. Marvin C. Shaw of Montana State University, Bozeman, Mont., for his paper, "The Test of the Search Is in What We find," which appeared in the "Unitarian Universalist Christian" in 1985.
The sermon in a Unitarian Universalist setting is never the last word on any subject, but rather an invitation to further dialog.
You may want to read other visitors' comments on Rev. Oren A. Peterson's "Aspects of Liberal Religion" .
If you wish to add your own comments on this sermon, please enter your name, e-mail address, city, state or province, country, and of course your comments into the following form: