The Difference Defined

September 8, 1985
Unspecified Location (probably Lakeland)

There is a periodic need to define the differences between Unitarian Universalist religion and the varieties of fundamentalisms which have purchased or captured so much time and space on the airwaves and newsprint, and provided so many seats in multi-thousand capacity auditoriums. Many times, these massive appeals to ears and eyes make us vulnerable to just being defensive. We rebuff extravagant claims by asserting what we do not believe. We reject imposed authority – Bible – creed – dogmatic church – because of historical facts, by applying reason, and being generous toward beliefs which will not fit into anyone's pre-cast iron boxes of presumed piety.

Although my approach is different today, let me emphasize that it is necessary to reject what is believed false. Keymo spoke of my locating my remarks of a couple years ago on the power of negative thinking and presenting them again. Maybe I will, because always there will be the need for the emphatic, “No” in religion, politics, economics, and every other area of mutual concern when claims are asserted we believe false, fanciful, or harmful.

Today I want to speak of the “No” and the “Yes” - defining what I believe to be the essential points of departure between fundamentalisms and Unitarian Universalist religious principles. Let this too be emphasized – we are certainly not sole possessors of a way I believe to be more thoughtful and enlightening. Millions in or out of religious institutions would agree – even though the specific expressions of the basic agreement might differ.

There are six points in my outline today. Three will criticize fundamentalisms, three will affirm a way which has been called the “new civility.” I found these six points in an article by Douglas Sturm (C + C, 8/26/85) who teaches in the religion department of Bucknell University. The elaborations of the points are mine.

First, fundamentalism unequivocally clings to a set of basic beliefs it considers to be unchangeable truths about the world.

Almost always this belief centers about a holy scripture asserted to be the revealed word of God and containing no errors. Such scripture is the authority for belief and conduct.

Ignored or rejected by Christian fundamentalists is the reality that fundamentalist Moslems place their authority in the Koran, divinely revealed to Mohammed by Allah. The Koran, for Moslem fundamentalists, is the authority for belief and conduct.

Symbolic and parabolic meanings of these scriptures are rejected by fundamentalists. As Max Stackhouse, a professor at Andover-Newton Theological School noted, “many in these traditions hold that the scriptures do not point to the ultimate truth, but are themselves the ultimate truth.”

For such fundamentalists, the world was created in 4004 BCE. When geologists, cosmologists, and other scientists demonstrate that our Earth is millions of years old, then scientists are just wrong, in the fundamentalists’ view.

Similarly evolution: when Darwin and his successors provide evidence for the change, mutation, disappearance of some species, evolving of other species (including the human species), over millions of years, then these scientists are just wrong, in the fundamentalists’ view. Moreover, malevolent motives are usually attributed to the scientific pathfinders. They are no longer tortured or executed, but they are labeled “secular humanists” - how awful!

For fundamentalists, the code of conduct is not only how they should behave, but how everyone else must behave. Mr. Dooley, the 19th century humorist, defined a fanatic as “one who knows he is doing exactly what the Lord would do were the Lord in possession of the facts.”

Secondly, the fundamentalist holds these truths with dogmatic certitude. Critical review and analyses are out. There is no modifying of positions when new facts or fresh insights are offered.

The scholarly and historical studies of Biblical literature, in progress for almost two hundred years, makes no impact on those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture, divinely revealed.

No consideration of the finding of scholars is given credibility. The assured findings that the scriptures were nearly a thousand years in formation, written by different persons in different times, under unlike conditions, makes no impact. That the older portions were in oral tradition for centuries, thus subject to generations of story-tellers adding, embellishing, changing the ancient tales, makes no impact on fundamentalism.

The reality that ancient laws, customs, taboos, of ancient times such as found in the book of Leviticus, have no relevance for modern times – that is ignored.

Not only labored interpretations of scripture are held with dogmatic certitude, but also creeds have tried to force persons into a religious Procrustean bed. Reason, fact, logic must yield to the creed. If your faith is too large, parts of you must be lopped off. If your face is too small for the creed, you must be stretched.

Augustine, called “Saint” by the Christian church, usually regarded as one of the two or three more profound theologians of Christian history, wrote “I would not believe the gospel if I were not moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Quoted by Hans Kung)

Such fundamentalism ignores the growth of human understanding and that time does make ancient truth subject to modification, discovery, refinement, and personal choice.

Third, many fundamentalists view the world as divided into two camps – those who are not with us are against us. There are the saved and the unsaved. Heaven or hell, bliss or torment, are the only possible destinations.

It is not only the fundamentalist preachers who exhort this ancient Persian myth dressed in Christian clothing, but also and more fearful still, the same chasm of division exists in the geo-political world. There is the Soviet World and the U.S. World, and the chasm is unbridgeable, or so we are exhorted constantly. The only possible solution is to eliminate the Soviet Union or extinguish the U.S. Fortunately, such political fundamentalists on either side have not conquered the minds and behavior of most of us. Otherwise, two idiotic giants would have blasted our earth in our time.

That there may be a third or fourth or fifth way is unthinkable to those who see only “them” and “U.S.”

Thus for me, the answer is “No” to anyone’s beliefs about the Earth and its living beings that cannot admit that ideas change and truth is growth, not a fixed object. “No” to dogmatic certitude. “No” to the idea that people everywhere are divided into two camps only.

In my introduction, I used the phrase “new civility” as a better choice than the closed minds of fundamentalisms. Of course, the “civility” of which I speak is not new. Generous-minded, truth-seeking men and women in all times have grasped its importance and necessity. But their efforts were too often squelched, forgotten, or transmuted by others to a more base metal.

This “way,” this “civility,” first of all, recognizes that each individual and every community may be possessed of some important truth about the human condition.

Jesus, as best we know, came out of a working-class family. Can any good come out of Nazareth? The centuries have answered that question. Not the dogmas and persecutions, but rather the wisdom of the parables, the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, have been constant reminders of how great the distance is between what we are and what we might be.

Buddha, son of a royal family, found fulfillment not in the luxuries that were his, but in the discovery that unlimited compassion for his fellow men and women was one of the noble truths of human existence.

If Russia had the infamous Stalin, that nation also produced Tolstoy. Should we remember only Ivan the Terrible and forget Dostoyevsky?

When we think of Germany, should we remember only Hitler and forget Goethe? Remember Eichmann but not Bach?

So it is across the nation and through history – there are those who have contributed discovery, insight, literature, art, and music to us all.

This attitude is not an apologetic for crimes against humanity. Rather, it is an attempt to recognize that always there are those who in every place and time whose discoveries or creativity have made life’s difficulties easier to bear.

To discount a people because of an iron curtain, or shifting political alliances, or fear or ignorance, is to subtract from the sum of wisdom so badly needed in perilous times.

Secondly, this “way,” this “civility” requires a posture of openness even to perceived enemies. That’s not easy, is it, when our perceived enemies – the Soviet Union and its allies – are held before us as an “evil empire” in our President’s words.

The Soviet Union perceives us as enemies. We circle their nation with nuclear bases. They see us as researching and building space weapons to wipe them out.

A philosopher of ancient times once said, “The dog barks at those he does not know.” That brief sentence digs profoundly into the difficulties of human relationships and conflicts between nations.

Can you think of any event in political possibility than halting the escalation of nuclear and other weapons? Arms reduction talks go on; a summit meeting between President Reagan and Premier Gorbachev approaches. Will there be openness in their discussions? Will our President assume the Soviet people want war? Will Gorbachev assume that the American people want to destroy the Soviet people? Such assumptions will lead to destruction.

A posture of openness requires two positions – one, that we can be critical of our opponent; two (and just as necessary), we must be self-critical. The best reason for that attitude of openness that I can think of is the thousands of nuclear weapons that both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. have poised at the ready.

Sometimes the very serious can be illustrated by the somewhat frivolous. Out of the Anglican or Episcopal tradition comes this story (from CONTEXT): “The town reprobate was run over in front of the church. The vicar rushed out: ‘Willy, you’ve lived a terrible life, but you are about to die. Don’t you want to be baptized, finally?’ Willy: ‘Vicar, I guess my time is up. Yes, I do want to be baptized.’ Vicar: ‘Well, Willy, do you renounce the devil and all his works?’ Willy, painfully, after a pause, with eyes closed: ‘Vicar, I’m in no condition to make enemies!’”

The whole human family is in that condition today.

Last, but not least, a way for life acknowledges kinship of all humanity, even all being in order to form institutions of conciliation and mutual enhancement. There is an interwoven web of all life that we sometimes forget in our strong feelings of individualism and nationalism.

While we have been on recess, two holidays have passed – July 4th and Labor Day. We have largely forgotten that both of these days celebrate not individualism but community and united effort for causes which persons underwent sacrifices for the common good. Columnist Ellen Goodman, writing of the Fourth of July, noted, “What connects us back through history to our founders and across space to each other is, ironically, a shared sense of the importance of our own separateness. Together we defend our right to be independent of others, including each other....” On July 4th, it’s worth remembering that the original day of independence was also a day of commitment and community.

Likewise, Labor day – and the 8 hour workday, the five-day workweek, the minimum wage, safety regulations in mine, mill, and smelter, contracts between labor and management – do you think such benefits we now think commonplace were achieved by an individual here and an individual there? No way! Institutions, labor unions, were formed to conciliate, to negotiate, to strike when deemed necessary. And in spite of organized labor’s seemingly diminishing influence today, the whole face of our nation, our world, is enhanced because individuals bonded themselves together in solidarity. A kinship was achieved. What remains for us and our successors is a recognition and implementation that there is kinship of all humanity to be recognized, negotiated, and achieved.

To summarize, I have intended to contrast:

- dogmatically held beliefs with the recognition that all persons, religions, and cultures possess some truth.

- the world of divided camps with openness even toward perceived enemies.

- and have claimed that the human family is one kin, however that condition has become obscured or rejected through a variety of historical, cultural, and social forces.

I hope I have not been guilty of drawing stereotypes. Certainly many persons have a touch of both sets of beliefs. There are those, including ourselves, who need the wider view, the broader truth, the deeper love. May we [be] among those [who] hold a light to lead them, and ourselves, on the way.