A while back I did a couple of posts on my chosen religion (
Unitarian-Universalism) talking about what I
liked and
disliked about it. The gist of the “dislikes” was the feeling I had that Unitarian-Universalism is so vague and in opposition to discussion of any Ultimate (whether the symbol “God” is used for it or not), that it can never develop a “theology” unique to itself, but would rather always be a collection of multiple groups that shared a building and some values, but nothing else. I am starting to rethink that.
It was encouraging to read in our local interim minister’s report from General Assembly this week that
The most popular event at G.A., other than the major worship services and ceremonies, was a nine-hour lecture on theology.
You might need to read that last sentence again. – The Rev. David Keyes
Indeed! It seems that All Souls (NYC)
Senior Minister Galen Guengerich presented a widely well-received “systematic theology” at G.A. I would love to read what he presented! Even before hearing about this I had been thinking out loud with
April about what a Unitarian-Universalist theology might look like after reading
an essay by Anthony Pinn in which he mentioned Gordon Kaufman and his brand of Christianity. I read Kaufman’s
In Face of Mystery and enjoyed it thinking to myself, a lot of Unitarian-Universalists could probably go along with this kind of Christianity.
Unitarian-Universalism is not Christian, of course, but it has room for Christianity in it and Kaufman’s type of Christianity is certainly in Unitarian-Universalism’s religious “neighborhood.” But the radically reasonable way he approached the symbol “God” got me wondering whether there was a way to approach theology in Unitarian-Universalism. I don’t know about a whole theology (although Rev. Guengerich seems to have developed something) but I came up with at least two things about Unitarian-Universalism that I believe to be true that might form a foundation for myself, at least, in thinking about this.
It may seem strange that one would have to work hard to find things one can say about the core beliefs of the religious system you belong to – but Unitarian-Universalism is no ordinary religion. But here is my attempt: first, Unitarian-Universalism self-identifies as a religion. By definition I think we can say as a consequence that
1. Unitarian-Universalism must, in some sense, take religion seriously.
But what does that mean? I think it means that Unitarian-Universalism must take the fundamental essence of religion seriously. It is not just a social club or a school of philosophy or a social action network. It is a religion. And for that to make any sense it must engage in whatever the something a religion must engage in minimally to be a religion. I’m not sure what that is, to be honest, but my guess is that it has something to do with fundamental (Ultimate) human experience.
But I also have thought there is something else that can be said with some firmness about Unitarian-Universalism. We have no creed, but we do have our official
“Seven Principles” and our “Sources.” Now individual Unitarian-Universalists don’t have to profess a belief in all these principles or draw from all the sources – there is no such litmus test for an adherent. Instead the Unitarian-Universalist congregations must affirm and promote them, not a particular Unitarian-Universalist individual. Hence the reason they are not considered creeds (though some may argue that this comes from a narrow understanding of the word “creed” and that our Seven Principles really are a creed - not that I have anybody, April, in mind...). In any case, in a practical sense I think it makes little real difference since it would be rather pointless, it seems to me, to be a member of a congregation that must affirm and promote these principles and states that it draws from these sources if one didn’t, at least broadly, agree with the principles and respect the sources.
But if the sources and principle are to have any meaning at all I think they point to at least one thing:
2. Unitarian-Universalism is pluralist and not exclusivist.
If your principles include “acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth” and a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning” and your sources include “[w]isdom from the world’s religions” I don’t know how it could be any other way. For instance I can’t imagine someone being Unitarian-Universalist but believing that Christianity/Buddhism/Islam/Humanism is the exclusive path to truth and meaning. One may prefer one of those paths to other paths – that is absolutely okay as I understand Unitarian-Universalism – but I think if one were to go beyond that and say “my Unitarian-Universalist Christian/Buddhist/Islamic/Humanist beliefs are the only path anyone should be taking and y’all who don’t share them may be well meaning but are just plain wrong” I think one would be leaving the path of the Unitarian-Universalist.
I think combining those two principles might lead minds more subtle and inventive than mine to something like a Unitarian-Universalist theology. One possibility seems to me to be along the lines of the viewpoint of
John Hick and his followers. I'm eager to find out if Rev. Guengerich’s theology talk went in any direction like this. In any case, I am a bit less pessimistic that it can be done than I was a few months ago. I used to think that one could only walk on a liberal Christian or Humanist or Pagan path and stop at a Unitarian-Universalist church now and then, sit down and hear a service. I am beginning to think maybe there is a way to walk along a Unitarian-Universalist path after all.
