The Old Time Religion – It’s Not Good Enough For Me

May 1981
Port Charlotte

Dissatisfaction with one’s religion may be a sign of healthy discontent. Some years ago, a Methodist bishop, speaking before a large conference of his denomination, said in reference to the old gospel song [“Old Time Religion,”] “The old time religion – it’s not good enough for me.” Then he drew on the Judeo-Christian tradition for illustrations. The old time religion wasn’t good enough for Abraham; he turned his face toward a new land and his heart toward a new god. The old time religion wasn’t good enough for Moses. He overturned the golden calf, and as lawgiver, led his people to new personal and social disciplines. The old time religion wasn’t good enough for Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. Their prophetic voices called upon the people to mend their ways, to root out the weeds from some of their religious practices. The old time religion wasn’t good enough for Jesus. He called upon the people to repent, to seek the kingdom of God and practice a more vital application of their religion. The old time religion wasn’t good enough for Luther, Calvin, John Hus, Savonarola, or Francis of Assisi.

In our own tradition, the old time religion wasn’t good enough for John Murray, Hosea Ballou, Channing, Emerson, Parker. Their minds and hearts revolted against the narrow, cruel doctrines of Calvinistic theology. They proclaimed and sparked the Universalist and Unitarian movements.

We seem to be living in a period of history in which more than usual revolutionary change is occurring And like all those who found the old time religion wasn’t good enough for them, we must find ideals to live by and behavior coherent with ideals.

I believe it basic to our Unitarian Universalist religion that is is one which both permits and encourages us to grow. Freedom is basic to our fellowship and we have both the power and the opportunity to create new beacons to guide our way when we find that the old time religion isn’t good enough for us.

Pioneer Daniel Boone always turned his face toward new frontiers. It is said that once when the nearest neighbor came to be only nine miles away, Boone moved on. He said that he couldn’t stand crowds and had to have elbow room. Remarking on this, someone once said to me that for many Universalists and Unitarians the sermons of William Ellery Channing or Hosea Ballou mark the extreme frontier of liberal thought. Somewhere in the book of the Exodus, when the children of Israel were making their long trek from the land of bondage to the land of freedom, they stopped many days at a certain mountain. Then the voice of Yahveh came to them saying, “Ye have compassed this mountain long enough. Advance.”

There are many people who will never feel the need of a religion that measures up to the new days and its needs. The old time religion is good enough for them. Others feel differently. For them, the old religions with their outworn myths and dogmatic absurdities just won’t do any more. Something in the neighborhood of 30% to 35% of the American people have no formal religious ties with any church or synagogue. Such certainly is their right and privilege. But there are those of us also, who find in religious fellowship the joy of group celebration and joint effort even though we do not carry unnecessary baggage of ideas and practices that have had their day and served their purpose.

Khalil Gibran, the Syrian poet, asked, “who can separate his faith from his actions? Or his belief from his occupation?”

If Unitarian Universalism is authentic for us inwardly and outwardly, it will be woven into all our actions, be the undergirding of our lives, whether in retirement, or whether we may be carpenters, engineers, homemakers, or whatever.

Are there guide lines without dogmatics? Pioneer educator Dr. Kilpatrick, some years ago, suggested humankind’s greatest achievements. The greatest achievements he suggested may be close to the mark. What would you term as the three greatest things women and men have accomplished in their millions of years on earth?

The first of these great achievements in Dr. Kilpatrick’s classification is modern science. Modern science has changed our world almost unbelievably in the last hundred and fifty years. What we call modern science has brought about more change in this period than all the fifty or more centuries of written history. Those who sing of the “old time religion” do not seem to recognize this.

There are certain qualities of mind and method toward all things which characterize the scientific approach to problems and mysteries. These qualities might be described (following, Bernet, COLLEGE AND LIFE, p. 175):

Natural curiosity, impartiality, breadth of view, persistence and industry in exploring sources of new truth, a fruitful skepticism, humility and tolerance, fearlessness as to what may be discovered and an open mind for new discoveries that may either confirm or revise existing theories.

Many years ago Dr. Andrew White of Cornell wrote his comprehensive study of THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY. In that notable study, the author demonstrated that in nearly ever field of science in which new truths have been discovered about the universe in which we live, have discovered new ways to ease the suffering of the sick, new ways to make living more comfortable and happy, organized religion has been an obstacle in the path to the adoption of new truths, new discoveries, new healing.

Galileo’s discovery that our earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth brought him to the hands of the torturers of the church who forced him to recant under pain. That is an old and terrible example. Today there is reflection of that attitude, although, so far, no torture in the hot-tempered opposition to the teaching of evolution in scientific curricula.

Yet, any dispassionate view of history discloses the fact that, properly interpreted, the new discoveries and methods do not undermine religious understanding. The new discoveries tell a little more about the power and energy that seem infinite in our universe.

A story which may seem trivial may help illustrate. Years ago, the National Geographic magazine told about one of the reasons that humankind may be grateful to Rockport, Maine, because it is the birthplace of one of the unique benefactors of persons. “Capt. Hanson Crockett Gregory, the man who invented the hole in the doughnut. A bronze plaque on Gregory’s old home records the deed. According to one version of the story, as a boy of 16, more than 125 years ago, Gregory watched his mother cook fried cakes, some of which had soggy, indigestible centers. Gregory suggested she cut a hole in them. The world knows the result. Capt. Gregory was decorated by Queen Isabella for saving the lives of shipwrecked Spanish sailors. There is no record of how many lives he saved by punching holes in fried cakes.”

Does that typical Maine story illustrate something of the role that science can play in a religion that makes sense and is fit for our time? It is science that gives us the clue to getting rid of the indigestible part of religion. Does not the modern discovery of how the mind affects the body, how the emotions can [weaken] our physical self give us a clue into many of the so-called miracles of Jesus? What was indigestible suddenly becomes a saving force because of the open mind and tolerant approach demonstrated by science at its best.

The Talmud says, “Greater is the miracle that occurs when a sick person escapes from perilous disease than that which happened when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah escaped from the fiery furnace; the torturous manner in which a family in distress manages to eke out an existence is as great a miracle as the parting of the Red Sea for the Israelites.”

Science alone is not enough. The second of humankind’s great achievements is the power of critical thinking.

As you observe an intricate telephone system, a humming factory, a hospital where the talents of trained men and women are put to the use of the needy, notice the astonishing capacity and potential of the computer revolution, can you think of life today without high intelligence?

John Erskine, famous professor of literature of another generation at Columbia, wrote a witty and challenging essay on the need to combine intelligence with the other desirable qualities of life. He used as a text, Kingsley’s lines, “Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever.”

And he went on to criticize a rather common attitude in our culture that somehow there was a division between goodness and intelligence. In his words, “stupidity is regarded as a first cousin to moral conduct, and cleverness the first step into mischief; that reason and God are not on good terms with each other; that the mind and heart are rival buckets in the well of truth, inexorably balanced – full mind, starved heart – stout heart, weak head.”

Professor Erskine illustrated his thesis by demonstrating that Shakespeare’s highly intelligent characters were usually villains or helpless victims of fate. Cunning Richard and shrewd Iago seem to demonstrate that thinking is sometimes apart from goodness. “The prizes of life,” Prof. Erskine went on, “go to such men as Bassanio or Orsino, men of good conduct and sound character, but not particularly intelligent.”

The application of intelligence to religion is just as needed as anywhere else. Can there be understanding without intelligence? Can there be a religion fit for our times unless it is a thoughtful religion? Should not religion make sense?

To be sure, thinking sometimes brings discomfort and discontent. Whitehead said that adventure is the key to civilization, and that the highest point of the adventure is the discontent with things as they are and men and women set their minds to work to try to make things better. Thinking is at times a painful experience, but it is the price to be paid.

That is one of the reasons why it is difficult to be liberal in religion. It is not easy to be a Unitarian Universalist. You are not expected to park your mind outside the Fellowship with your car.

There is one more of humankind’s greatest achievements. Without this, science can be a curse and intelligence the door-handle to tyranny. The third achievement is the recognition of the worth of the human personality. Without that principle pre-eminent, Unitarian Universalism or any other religion or code is a danger.

The tyrant can employ scientists and intelligence can be the tool of evil. The free individual is a prime condition and the best vision of humankind thus far. John Dewey thought that this was the greatest contribution of the Protestant Reformation. He wrote, “The greatest influence of Protestantism was ... in developing the idea of the personality of every human being as an end in herself/himself.”

Seneca, the famous orator of ancient Rome, told the story of the sculptor Parrhasus. Parrhasus was an intelligent, highly skilled sculptor with chisel and hammer. A scientist of sculptured stone. So eager was Parrhasus to portray a dying warrior true to life that he had his model put to death so that he could observe the actual dying agonies and accurately sculpt the scene in stone.

Science, intelligence, and skill are not enough. Otherwise we can be seduced like that ancient sculptor into thinking that human beings can be willfully sacrificed for science or art or politics.

Women and men have a long way to go in accepting this achievement. Personality in too many places is not sacred.

If one seeks to interpret the American experience (I do not speak of other cultures because of a lack of immersion in them) ... one must inevitably deal with the points cited.

Scientific attitude – curiosity – exploration of new frontiers, not only in the intellectual setting of lab or library, but also in the opening of the continent, the migrations westward, the industrial revolution, the electronic revolution.

Critical thinking – analysis of propositions, the possible consequences of innovation, the development of free public education and the huge expansion of American universities, not only in size but also in curriculum innovations.

Worth of persons: in spite of many negative attitudes and cruel events, this too is reflected in our American experience, although much [more] slowly: the end of human slavery, minimum wage, health care even for those who cannot pay, publicly financed housing for the poor, unemployment insurance, social security. There are still large gaps to be filled.

The American experience has been a series of recognitions that the old ways were not good enough. Therefore there was change.

But there [are] millions who have not shared the American experience described. The geographical frontiers have evaporated, educational skills are not universal, the worth of all persons is not fully recognized. The experience for many has been that of disinheritance.

The past is not good enough. It can be made better. That is the sharp recognition whose keenness we must feel.