|
Standing for Nothing
Reverend Brian J. Kiely,
Unitarian Church of Edmonton, February 6, 2000
Reading
(Why) has our religious movement ... succeeded in commanding
such loyalty? Unitarian Universalism really does offer a radically
different
approach to the religious life from most of the world's great
faith traditions.
For one thing, we look to virtually all of those traditions --Buddhism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. --for wisdom and inspiration.
While Unitarian Universalism traces its roots to the left wing of
the Protestant Reformation, we are not content to draw sustenance
from Christianity alone, revere that tradition though we do.
This pluralistic outlook derives in large measure from our central
tenet: that the mysteries of creation are so great as to overwhelm
every human attempt to capture them in a single channel of religious
faith. The primary source of authority in religious matters, we believe,
is not the Bible or the Koran, not official doctrine or ecclesiastical
officials, but each individual in conversation with a tradition and
in community with others. You know better than I what religious affirmations
square with your personal insights and experience. To join one of
our congregations therefore requires no assent to a creed.
That does not mean, however, that Unitarian Universalism offers
the religious pilgrim no core principles or values. We offer our
statement of Principles...Adopted in 1984, this statement is but
the latest attempt to articulate normative Unitarian Universalism.
Because ours is an evolving faith, it too will in time be superseded,
but for now it reflects the contemporary incarnation of our movement's
430 years of history.
— Rev. William Schulz, President of the UUA, 1985-1993
A
long time ago someone defined Unitarianism as a religion that "embraces
everything, but stands for nothing." The author of that quote
was decrying our lack of a formal creed; that required set of beliefs
that probably defined membership in his church. No doubt he belonged
to a faith that had all the basics you expect to find in western
religion: a Sacred Book, a Creed, well-defined church teachings
with prescribed answers for most, if not all theological questions.
And
because of that, the author had some preconceived notions about
what a religion must look like in order to be called a religion.
But does
religion have to fit into such a neat and tidy box? Must the idea
of religion be confined to asking certain limited questions? I
don't think so. If Unitarian Universalism is anything, it is religious
thinking done outside that box that so many other denominations
use
to define their theological universes.
Discussing theology in North America is a lot like discussing driving
to work. People will ask you what kind of car you drive and how it
works for you. The nature of the question defines the answer. It
provides the shape of the box in which the discussion will take place.
You drive a Ford, a Mercedes, a Honda or whatever. The rest of the
conversation is defined by such basic and standard rubrics as engine
size, model year, horsepower, traction in snow and the effectiveness
of your heater at -40.
The conversation about cars can be extensive, comparative and occasionally
combative when one feels passionately about one's ride. But there
is no room in the conversation for, "I take the bus," or, "I
walk to work," or, "I don't have a job."
Answers like that bring the conversation to a screeching halt. It's
as if one party switched to a foreign language. Sometimes the car
owners will dismiss the bus riders as insignificant, or as impoverished
car wannabees who just have not received sufficient enlightenment.
They are subjects for conversion to the car owner's way of seeing
the world. And in many cases the bus riders are just that, car drivers
in waiting.
But what really confuses the car owners are those people who want
to ride buses or bikes or who prefer to walk. It's less expensive,
more environmentally friendly and better exercise. It is a language
and a set of rubrics our auto enthusiasts simply do not understand.
Well, western theology is a lot like that -confined to a box that
narrowly defines the conversation into a set of either/or propositions.
You believe or you don't. You sin or you dont. You go to Heaven or
to Hell. An old joke illustrates it well: When a Christian who believed
in eternal Hellfire and damnation found out about Universalism, the
idea that everybody goes to Heaven regardless of their actions in
life, she was horrified. She confronted a Universalist saying, "So,
this Universalism means you can do anything you want to do, steal,
rape, kill." The Universalist answered, "Is that what you
want to do? Steal, rape, kill?"
There is an assumption in that woman's conservative view of Christianity
that humans are sinful and have been since the fall of Adam and Eve.
Unless kept in line by either the promise of heaven or the threat
of Hell, we will sin relentlessly. In her mind, morality cannot be
a freestanding inherently humanly devised code. It only comes from
the Book, or the teachings, or from God.
Well, we don't think of it that way. Unitarian Universalists tend
to think morality is a set of principled choices made by humans out
of a desire to live their lives well. The moral code is a human creation,
it's part of culture. God likely had very little to do with its initiation.
In fact our first principle, the one that affirms "the inherent
worth and dignity of every person" -takes the exact opposite
position to the idea of original sin. As a group, we tend to share
a belief in the essential goodness of human beings. We reject the
idea that we are born sinful. We try to see every person as having
great potential and deserving of our respect. And that kind of reasoning
puts us outside the theological box in which so many do their thinking.
In the western world, the theological discussion is dominated by
the "people of the Book". Christians top the list, followed
by Jews and Muslims. The Hindus and Buddhists are also there, but
not as significant a set of players. So theological conversation
is dominated by the teaching of their respective Books. Meaning no
disrespect, the Books -the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the
Koran are the cars. A theological conversation involves discussion
of the stories, creeds, commandments and other themes present in
these Books. These become the only allowable rubrics for discussing
religion. Like an owner's manual, the Books are handed down by the
churches and there is an expectation that one will not only follow
the directions and the chapter headings, but that all discussion
will be confined to the subjects outlined in the manual.
No auto manufacturer discusses taking the bus in its Book, nor does
it question the legitimacy or purpose of automobiles. No major religion
seriously discusses things outside its Book either. It is taken for
granted, for example, that a creed --a written down set of beliefs
that all followers must share --is both a good and necessary thing.
In subsequent discussions the notion of a creed is never questioned.
It is a part of religion. Indeed, it is the engine of the whole machine.
So when we come along and say we profess no shared creed, it is tantamount
to denying everything contained in their religious box.
Not surprisingly, throughout our history our creedlessness has upset
the powers devoted to the Books. They see our lack a fixed creed,
and they see our willingness to consider new ways of thinking and
seeing the world, and they accuse Unitarians of "embracing everything
and standing for nothing."
Years ago when I sat with my dad's oldest friend, Father Matt Meehan
and told him I was engaged to marry a Unitarian his response was, "Ah,
a pagan." He was using an inaccurate but popular Catholic definition
of a pagan as anyone who had not come to Christianty's enlightenment.
In one sentence he dismissed my fiance as ignorant and damned. His
limited, though highly educated religious worldview could not allow
any other possibility outside of his comfortable box.
Harold Berry, another Christian writer in a series of pamphlets
on non-Christian churches had this to say:
"
Such a (non-creedal) perspective reveals the groups' thinking that
all truth is relative and that no belief should be binding on all.
It is apparent when reading their books, however, that the Unitarian
Universalists have some definite beliefs --even if they take the
form of denials..." He then accuses us of denying the factuality
of the Bible, the Trinity, even denying God, as shaped by Christianity
and denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. He takes great pains to
show why we are wrong in these denials. He never once looks at the
respect we give those theological tenets, nor does he respect our
approach to religion.
In his conclusion Berry commends us for our social justice work
but adds, "In their attempts to be 'freethinking' and non-creedal,
however, they have become so liberal that they deny almost every
doctrine of the Christian faith. They have replaced the worship of
God with the worship of self. They teach that human reason and experience
take precedence over the Word of God. They have rejected God's offer
of salvation through faith in Christ and have replaced it with a
salvation of personal development and good works. Their belief allows
every person to do whatever is right in his own eyes as long as he
is sincere about it.
"The fact that the UUA has become progressively more liberal
through the years shows us what happens when we do not have an absolute
standard of truth on which to base our lives. And for the Christian,
the Bible must be that standard. Any other foundation leads to chaos."
Well, that conclusion --supposedly about us-- speaks more about
the box Berry's Christianity lives in than about anything we believe
or do. If that's what it means to stand for something, then perhaps
being accused of standing for nothing is really something we might
want to take as a compliment!
We do not require a belief in God or Jesus to be part of this church.
That's far from a denial. In Berry's black and white world, there
is no room for discussion or reflection about the box or even about
what might be outside of it. In the end his ability to think through
religious questions is limited by his absolute conviction that, "the
Bible must be that standard. Any other foundation leads to chaos."
Those other foundations would include Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism
and a host of other religions and, of course, any philosophy that
might be held by agnostics or atheists. In other words, he dismisses
the foundational theologies and philosophies of the non-Christian
majority around the world. Not a very all encompassing world view.
Blessedly, not all Christians think like that. In many churches
today the boundaries of the theological box are at least being expanded
if not completely torn down, and it is causing no small measure of
anxiety in those institutions. But the traditional view still holds
sway over the discussion of any religious question in this country.
I am often asked what Unitarians believe instead of what principles
we follow. The question is clearly based in the reasoning that a
religion must have a fixed set of beliefs to be valid. I even get
that question from avowed atheiests!
Well, Unitarian Universalists neither embrace everything nor stand
for nothing. Both ends of that statement are gross exaggerations.
Rather we choose to approach in a different way. Most in this church
grew up in that traditional theological box and, having found it
confining, got out. Once outside we found that this Unitarian place
existed, a church with a 400 year history of stretching the boundaries
of religious discussion. For us the questions go beyond "Do
you believe in God?" to, "Is there some essence or force
in the universe you consider divine? If so, how would you describe
it?" For most of us the idea of the divine is not a multiple
choice answer, it is an essay question, an invitation to think through
and expand our horizons.
And we don't think anyone has nailed the exactly right answer yet.
As former UUA President Bill Schulz said in our reading, "the
mysteries of creation are so great as to overwhelm every human attempt
to capture them in a single channel of religious faith." In
other words, no one has yet designed a box that can properly contain
a god.
So yes, we do embrace quite a lot as we journey on our search for
truth and meaning, but along the way we do reach way points where
we say, "This is what I believe." It may change over time,
but that doesn't mean we are wish-washy, it means we are intellectually
honest about our ability to learn and revise our thinking.
And we do stand for things. We understand that this search of ours
cannot be run without careful guidelines, and so we adopt those seven
principles we shared in our responsive reading.
Translated into everyday action they mean that we believe everyone
has a right to air their beliefs, even if we are not always as tolerant
as we wish we could be of those beliefs. We hold that those ideas
and beliefs must be spoken and heard with respect. We believe in
affirming each other and all aspects and dimensions of the web of
life. We believe in trying to live as well and as morally as we can
here on earth, for it is here that we make any sense of heaven or
hell for ourselves. We believe in trying to extend the justice we
would wish for ourselves to others who cannot get it. And finally
we believe that when new information comes along, when the dialogue
opens up new vistas for us, that we are obligated to reconsider and
even change our views.
It is wrong to accuse Unitarian Universalists of standing for nothing.
We stand for many things, we just refuse to stand still.
Back to Sermon Archive
|
