The Future of Unitarian Belief

November 5, 1967
Plainfield

The Future of Unitarian Belief

Irrespective of how many of us may respond to samples, trends, and projections of beliefs among Unitarians and Universalists, this above all: the religious foundation each of us needs should provide the basic strength to confront both triumph and disaster with continuing confidence in life; should give assurance that there are resources within for the conquest of fear; and should bestow a continuing attitude that no matter how gloomy at times the human condition may seem, we are given hope that worthy aspirations may ever be renewed and that decisive conduct is an option always available, if we WILL to act.

In speaking of the future of Unitarian belief, I am making observations beginning with Table 41 of the “Report of the Committee on Goals” of the U.U.A. Under the leadership of our Adult Programs Committee, discussions begin tomorrow using some of the findings of the Goals Committee as a starting point. The purpose of these discussions is not to hammer out uniformity of belief but to discover the nature of the bond among Unitarians which causes them to support a common enterprise, namely this First Unitarian Society of Plainfield. Someone recently defined maturity something like this, “I once defined maturity as the art of being willing to shell peas, but now I think it is accepting cheerfully the fact that something is always out of order.” (From STILLMEADOW CALENDAR, Gladys Taber, Lippincott) Somehow that reminded me of the Universalist Unitarian societies and organizations.

Or if that didn’t come through to you, consider this statement about Unitarian Fellowships by author Betty Mills (with the exception of such distinctive fellowship artifacts as borrowed furniture, the observations apply to established UU Churches)

“A fellowship is an island of liberalism in a sea of orthodoxy; it is a group of people sitting on borrowed chairs in preference to padded pews. It is a state of religious satisfaction amidst financial despair. A fellowship consists of people with horrified relatives and precocious children, and develops tremendous esprit-de-corps by arguing violently among themselves. A fellowship has sourdough pancakes for Easter breakfast, jazz for the processional, and Mark Twain for the benediction. It cries loudly to Boston for help, and then tells its emissaries how to run the denomination. It borrows furniture from its members, hymns from the orthodox, and ideas from everyone. It is composed of 3 parts exhilaration and two parts exasperation, and glues everything together with coffee. It is at once a risky adventure and a great adventure, and without it I would be a lost soul.”

It is with some similar blend of inspiration and confusion that many of us have examined the statistical tables and goals in the Report.

Table 41 represents the belief preferences of the sampled members of the U.U.A. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the theological hopes are divided as follows:

6.4% prefer that ten years from now we will be closer to liberal Protestantism.
4.8% prefer that ten years from now we will be closer to the ecumenical Christian movement.
36.7 % prefer that ten years from now we will be closer to an emerging, universal religion.
52.0% prefer that ten years from now we will be closer to a distinctive, humanistic religion.

Do these classifications have substantial differences? It would seem that the approximate 11% who would prefer we be closer to the liberal Protestants and the ecumenical Christian movement would look favorably on the spirit of Christian myth, belief, and practice, rather than on the rigidities of Christian dogma. But only a fraction more than one in ten prefer this trend. My guess is that this is an accurate prediction.

A surprisingly large total, almost 89%, nearly 9 in 10, prefer that we become closer to an emerging, universal religion or closer to a distinctive, humanistic religion.

Before dealing with the question of whether beliefs are trivial or vital, and the possibility of emerging universal religion, just a few lines of definition to review and emphasize some of the authentic differences in meaning that are represented by such words as atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, humanist.

An atheist usually denies the existence of any god or gods.

An agnostic holds that it is not possible to acquire knowledge of whether or not god exists. As originally coined by Thomas Huxley, agnostic indicated a suspension of judgment about ultimate issues.

A Deist believes that there is a God who created the Universe, but remains entirely apart from it. Such a God is not the source of goodness; not a moral being; and has no communication with human persons.

A Theist usually believes that God is a personal Being, both above and within the Universe and who does have relations with persons.

A Humanist is even more difficult to define briefly. Essentially, he may be deist, agnostic, or atheist as far as the idea of God is concerned, but holds that the proper focus of religion should be entirely fixed at the human life on earth; life here and now; “the proper study of mankind is man.” In another sense, the Humanist may believe that the only source of human knowledge is from human perceptions, not supernatural, natural only, individual and collective; that beliefs in Gods (like all other beliefs) are the product of human cultures, social and personal; that any religious belief is therefore always relative, never absolute.

I am aware too that many of you will not fit into any of these categories; that inevitably many of you would offer some variety of “yes, but” qualification to every definition.

There was a time when the issue of Humanism vs. Theism raged hotly in Unitarian Universalist societies. That there could or should be a vital religion without God was controversial, as some of you may remember. Some partisans were willing to erect some sort of creedal barrier in order to keep Humanists out. Some Humanists were equally outraged that there were Unitarians and Universalists who could hold such an antiquated and outdated belief as that there was a God who existed. Perhaps some of you remember the story, current a few years back, of the denominational executive who received a delegation from a convinced Humanist congregation who had fears that their theistic minister was trying to evangelize them. As one version of the story goes, the head of the delegation, a retired schoolteacher insisted quaveringly, “But Dr. X in his prayers has got to the place where he actually asks the Lord to bless us, and we can’t stand it.”

Now it seems somewhat strange that liberal fevers should have raged so hotly. Now there is cheerful acceptance of differences of theological belief. We have recognized that different meanings can be attached to the same words; and different words may have essentially the same meaning. I guess the closest current parallel would be to ask some of you to compare the depth of your feelings about the church taking social action stands and positions as a society. That today probably has much the same high emotional fever as the humanist-theist controversy ten to 20 years ago.

As the table indicates, the trend is toward a blend of Humanist attitudes and a search for creative consolidation of the enduring insights of all religions, Western and Eastern.

Should we then assume that differences in belief are of little or no account in the deliberations, attitudes, and programs of a Unitarian Universalist religious society in the 1960s? As a matter of record, not only in our societies but also in the main streams of Protestant orthodoxy and to a lesser extent in Roman Catholicism, heresy seems to have become “old hat.” This is the headline of a recent article (NYT 1/67) pointing out that even for much of orthodox Christianity, “all theological formulas are approximate” and that “theological freedom is an element of risk that must be tolerated.” Alan Watts wrote that “the standard brand religions, whether Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan, Buddhist are as now practiced, exhausted mines.” (THE BOOK, p. 4)

It seems no longer news that “god is dead.” Last year’s extensive coverage of this obituary, startling to many persons, has dwindled to an occasional item or article. Are such signs among the larger denominations signals to Unitarian Universalists that all theology is either imponderable or irrelevant? Should we ignore beliefs and get down to what is real – individual and collective action to set right the things which are so obviously wrong in our city, nation, world?

If so, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Unitarian Universalists, Jews, Moslems and you name it should no longer make a big deal out of their distinctions in theology, group worship, and differing organizational structures and programs. Forget traditions and beliefs; remember issues and actions! Is that the “word” for today? And is it good advice?

But however one may react to the “death of God,” whether as a somewhat exaggerated obituary or not, there is little doubt in my mind that a theology or philosophy of one’s own is necessary to a more fully-developed self and more effective living with others in the social orders of family, communities, world. I’m not referring to murky, theological generalizations redolent with the dust of obscurity and the foggy incense of dogmatic abstractions. I’m asserting the need to attach a “why,” “how,” and “where” to life – of coming to grips with the nature and destiny of this being we call the self; of arriving at some tentative conclusions about the character of and reason for this universe, our home.

The need for belief is not because the conduct of life is of lesser importance or that convictions about and actions on social issues are of minor value. Quite the contrary. We need beliefs about persons and destinies because the more we have confronted the options and chosen to believe in certain ways, the more assured and effective will be our actions.

A formidable reality seems to occur when dealing with issues that bristle with controversy. When the process of seeking social change begins, usually the approach is moderate, but the resistance of many counter-social forces causes transformation to more radical positions. For example, in the troubled cities, fundamental changes, not gradual, are called for and there is a new militant stance in the Civil Rights movement. This is a change that is now at hand. If you do not feel this sea-change in attitudes, I hope you will be here next Sunday morning when Roger Gutrie, Roger Hall, and I attempt to communicate some of the content and feeling of this change as reflected in the recent U.U.A. Emory Conference on Civil Rights.

Action and demands are going to test beliefs, perhaps as they’ve never been tested in our lives. Therefore it would be well to have belief.

We become our beliefs. William Jovanovich, a publisher, makes the interesting point that “man becomes the servo-mechanism of what he himself creates.” (American Scholar, Winter 66/67). For example, the ancient tribes of Israel formed a covenant community and bonded the covenant with the Torah, the written Law. Soon they became known as the People of the Book. The name has persisted for thousands of years. They created the Book because they believed in the Covenant, and [in so doing] became the People of the Book. This illustrates the fundamental power of belief.

Issues and troubles are testing beliefs as never before. If one has no beliefs to be tested, then he is like unto the leaf fallen from the tree, blown hither and yon by every breeze of changing circumstance. If, however, he is like unto the live leaf attached to the tree, the source of life and strength, then he is more likely to hold on even when the winds of force rise.

Achieving one’s basic, undergirding belief is not easy. Change and social pressure, along with the fantastic growth of knowledge, can easily confuse us. The temptation is great to shirk the task of achieving convictions which can be both rationally held and felt deeply. Inertia in a thing-centered civilization creates easily a state of comfortable paralysis of the will. To be a person fired by emotion, who has wrought out conviction on the anvil of experience with the hammer of thought, is to have labored continuously and arduously. Yet that labor will bring reward, not in what we have, but in what we do, and more vitally still, in what we are.

George MacLeod, found of the re-established Iona Community, said, “pray for more light, but follow the light you see.” (WE SHALL REBUILD)

For one, I believe I am beginning to see glimmers of light which illuminate belief, increase my understanding and effective action. The trend toward universalism and Humanism will continue to grow in importance as our way of understanding ourselves and others.

I think the time is past when we will grow strongly on the basis of what we don’t believe about God, Man, Trinity, Salvation. The beliefs that appeal now are positive – what we do believe, what we intend to do. How seriously do we take the difference between real and ideal. Can Unitarian Universalists act – and in what ways?

Recognizing that our perceptions of experience are the ways of our human learning, and accepting the obvious social reality that different cultures have produced different ways of believing, we will increasingly seek out the best insights of Buddhism, Hinduism, and ancient Chinese religion as enriching streams flowing into the pool of better religious insights. Furthermore, as we eventually overcome our over-emphasis of abstract thought, “rational” so-called, we will take unto ourselves some of the enriching, aesthetic expressions – color, movement, sound, touch – of those religions we have erroneously called “primitive.” This search for enriching values which have universal application will not be indiscriminate. We will discard as well as incorporate. But when we search with openness, we will find that which should be retained and valued. Alfred North Whitehead wrote, “The decay of Christianity and Buddhism as determinative influences in modern thought is partly due to the fact that each religion has unduly sheltered itself from the other.” This is an observation not limited to Christianity and Buddhism, but plies across the spectrum of religions.

In the closing minutes of this sermon, let me attempt to state my present convictions about my hope for the future of belief among Unitarians and Universalists. Given our individual freedom of belief – no other option is possible for us – my hope is that the trend toward universalism and humanism must recognize and attempt to bridge the imagination gap in self and society. I have no doubt that rationality will continued to be valued among us; it is now more important that we permit the imagination to form images of higher, more effective religious attitudes.

Many persons today live in fractured segments. They participate in an occupational culture with its rules and attitudes; they perform volunteer assignments in innumerable organizations which may provide an atmosphere in some contradiction to the work culture; political parties represent an additional fragmentation for many, not to speak of the expressed attitudes of religious organizations and leaders taking stances which may be anathema to some persons who are looked to for support of these religious organizations and spokesmen. Then there are other differing worlds – the home, the club, the leisure world, and the most underestimated of all, the expressive arts which we create or to which we respond.

The conflicts we feel between these differing worlds rip the stability of many persons because there is no stable center to which all can relate and be harmonized. This estrangement can be called “alienation” or “identity crisis.” The feeling is widespread.

The only available bridge to link these differing worlds is the ability of the self to respond with imagination. The person, the self, the individual is a unique being, unrepeatable. Our inner self, this constellation of traits kept in orbit by that deeply buried core cannot be Xeroxed or mimeographed.

This conflict caused by fragmentation of interests and commitments is not a new problem for the human family. The ancient ones solved it by having various gods for the various divisions of life – a god of harvest and fertility, a god of love, a god of travel, a god of justice, and so on. As societies achieved cultural cohesion, occasionally some God was the connecting bridge, as was Yahveh of ancient Israel.

But life becomes increasingly more complex. The god or gods of others will not do for each of us. It is ourselves which must provide the co-ordinating center, or the bridge.

Thus, as I have said on other occasions, while I believe we live in a universe of enormous force, which created us, the underlying power will not intervene from the outside to build the imagination gap for us or solve our problems. We must understand and cultivate the inner self in order to interact with others in the confrontation of difficult problems. The light I begin to see begins to make clearer that the inner self has magnetic power which can gather more closely the fragmented segments of our lives. I believe that the future will disclose this in our experience if we are alert to it and do not dismiss ourselves as accidental aggregates of wishes meeting environmental forces.

Some of the best thinking on the need to bridge the imagination gap was done by the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit scientist, whose books, THE FUTURE OF MAN, THE PHENOMENON OF MAN, and THE VISION OF THE PAST have created much interest and discussion.

His thought is stimulating and controversial. Because it is worth some emphasis, a two-sermon series is in preparation, not only because there are those of you who have raised questions about de Chardin’s philosophy, but also to help my own growth. Just a sample may indicate why I believe he spoke to the Imagination Gap (CJW then quotes from THE PHENOMENON OF MAN, p. 261)

In summary, the future of belief for Unitarians is humanistic with a response to and gathering of insights and wisdom from all times and places. We will recognize that no one ever had all the truth, but that most enduring religious cultures had a grasp on some portion of truth about the human condition, internal, environmental, or both.

In my view, we will seek to develop our inner imaginative self to bridge more successfully and creatively the conflicts in society. Answers to problems will not wait until everyone achieves this imaginative self-stabilized grasp of experience. War, conflict in our cities, old wrongs of segregation and discrimination cannot tolerate much more delay. This reality we should not forget. We must act as wisely, promptly, and effectively as humanly possible.

But if religious belief has a future, then its energy is that of the self, dealing creatively with its physical and social environment to the end that one can love his neighbor and himself, not in words alone but in interpersonal relations, social ethics, aesthetic creativity and receptivity, and a common, unending search for that which is good and enduring.