Description: What is unique and distinctive about the Unitarian approach to religion? Probably the best answers can be found in our pluralism, our history, and the six sources of our tradition. 

About the Author: Craig Beam is a member of the First Unitarian Congregation of Waterloo, where he is chair of the Adult Religious Education Committee. He completed his Ph.D in Philosophy in 1999. His interests include ethics, religion, and the history of ideas. This essay\sermon grew out of Craig's desire to define Unitarianism shortly after becoming a UU in 1998. He has presented it and other talks at several UU congregations in Southern Ontario. He can be reached at <cabeam@watarts.uwaterloo.ca>.

The following may be reproduced for use in Sunday services or religious education, as long as I am acknowledged as its author.

       The challenge of defining our spiritual identity is not an easy one. We don't fit the stereotype of what a "religion" is. We don't have a creed or an authoritative scripture. We aren't much concerned with the supernatural. Even the name "Unitarian" is something of a misnomer. We owe it to our radical Protestant ancestors who did not accept the Trinity. Today, however, most of us no longer define ourselves as Christians. It has been said: "Unitarians believe that there is, at most, one God." With the arrival of pagans on our denominational scene, even this is no longer true. If one thinks of the deity in terms of psychological archetypes or human ideals, perhaps one should say that deity is multiple.

     Moreover, our religion is not widely known. According to one author, 60% of Americans have never heard of Unitarianism. [i] This figure is probably higher in Canada, where the number of us is proportionally smaller. This means that one is more likely to encounter puzzled queries if one identifies oneself as a Unitarian than as a Catholic or United Church member. It also means that we have a more legitimate need to publicize our approach to religion than the more traditional faiths, many of which - like Coke and Pepsi - offer a religious product that everyone has heard about and which is pretty much indistinguishable from its main competitors.

     And how do those who are aware of us see us? A 1967 Newsweek article described Unitarians as "atheists who have not shaken the church habit." A 1990 article, in the same publication, described us as "the quintessential baby boomer church" with appeal to the well-educated and spiritually individualistic. [ii] One wit has written that if you are a Unitarian, "bigots burn a question mark on your lawn." [iii] A church consultant, writing in the World, had the impression that the Unitarian church appeals to people who are restless, one might say "marginal," or "a little odd." He went on to speak highly of our "capacity to disagree agreeably." [iv] 

Defining Our Path

     So what is Unitarianism? What is the best way of defining our approach to religion? Curtis Reese, an early 20th century humanist, said that "historically the basic content of liberal religion is spiritual freedom." [v] This seems to be a good place to begin. As Unitarians, we insist on the right of defining our own beliefs. Such freedom is not just something to be tolerated, but something to be nurtured and affirmed. This is the premise of such Unitarian Adult Religious Education programs as Building Your Own Theology.

     In defining ourselves - or in defining any religion, for that matter - it is important to avoid a couple of pitfalls. First, a good definition must be properly inclusive - it must not exclude any people or things which ought to be included. In our case, there must be room for atheists and theists, rationalists and mystics, and religious liberals of every sort. The principles of freedom and tolerance implore us to draw our circle as broadly as possible.

     However, a useful definition must not be so broad and vague that it fails to bring out what makes us unique. As examples of poor definitions of this type, I would cite some ultra-inclusive definitions of Christianity. Suppose Christianity, for example, is defined simply in terms of the best of Jesus' teachings - love of neighbour, forgiveness, compassion for the poor, and so on. If this is all that Christianity is, then the essential teachings of the Buddha and many secular humanists are really "Christian," while many of the most well-known tenets of Christian orthodoxy are quite anti-Christian. Or, to take an example a bit further from home, consider the following ultra-inclusive definition of the Moslim religion (given by a Moslim):

     A Moslim is anyone who follows the laws of God. Thus, the sun, moon, trees, animals, and everything else in the Universe is Moslim because it follows God by submitting to His laws. Every existing thing has had laws ordained for it. This is Islam, the natural religion of Man. In every age and place there have been God-knowing and truth-loving people who have loved this religion. They were Moslims whether they called it Islam or not. [vi]

I don't know about the date palms of the Middle East, but I'd like to think that the tree outside my bedroom window is a Unitarian tree - if for no other reason than since I'm the one who looks at it, I'm entitled to project whatever I want! Whatever sort of "divine law" my tree follows seems to be immanent or implicit in its nature. So if we humans are intended to follow a similar law, I don't see why we shouldn't think of it as being immanent or implicit in our nature. Why should we, alone among the creatures of the earth, need a special revelation from Mohammed to tell us what to do? But without this revelation - without the Koran - what remains of traditional Islam?  

Seven Principles

     Let us return now to our own religion. If there is a currently authoritative expression of Unitarianism, it is our statement of Principles and Purposes. It lists seven principles and six sources of our living tradition. The seven principles are ethical not theological. They do not tell us what we must believe, like most church creeds. They are not a list of prohibitions, like the Ten Commandments. Rather, they are a series of general guidelines, which are likely to be revised at some future General Assembly.

     These principles, I think, are not as helpful in defining Unitarianism as are the six sources. For they are very general. Consider the first two principles. It is hard to think of any major religion that would reject the principle of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person." Or be opposed to "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations." (Whether they live up to them in practice is another matter.) People may read into such principles many different things. Justice is the most deeply contested term in political theory. And in the name of the worth of the human person, people may take diametrically opposing positions on issues such as abortion and euthanasia.

     My point here is not to criticize. Rather, it is to point out that ethical principles, when stated in very broad terms, are likely to attract support across all lines, and when stated in very specific terms, are likely to open up disagreements within every camp. Some of the other principles do a better job of defining what we - as opposed to other religions - do stand for. The fourth principle, our commitment to "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning," seems to distinguish us from all Bible-based churches. And the sixth and seventh principles, which refer to "the goal of world community" and "respect for the interdependent web of all existence," have implications that are radical and prophetic. 

Six Sources

     Let us move on to the six sources of our living tradition. These sources are a good place to start in explaining Unitarianism. The book Our Chosen Faith (co-authored by John Buehrens, the President of the UUA from 1993-2001) is organized in terms of them, and so is much of the material in our hymnal. The six sources bring to mind some of the things that are most unique about the Unitarian path. For they speak of our religious pluralism and our historical tradition.

     Being pluralists means that we are happy to draw on many spiritual sources - not just one sacred book which is the product of a culture very much unlike our own. Being pluralists means that there is no single Unitarian identity, no standard way of amalgamating the different sources of our tradition. Harvey Joyner, a UU minister, makes this point rather well:

     Bold witnessing, effective evangelism, calls for spiritual clarity! ... Let us dispel the notion that, as Unitarian Universalists, we have created a new, utopic religion. Rather, we are a religious institution, an association of diverse congregations and fellowships ... Each of us, even if we have difficulty articulating it, are UU Christians, UU Jews, UU Humanists, UU Pagans, or UU whatever else ... Much of the recent growth [of my church] in Colorado Springs has happened because of conscious efforts to embody diversity, rather than to homogenize everyone into the lowest common denominator so as to create a liberal orthodoxy of sameness. As a multifaith congregation, we are finding diversity a stimulus towards further growth. With a Humanist Association, a Covenant of UU Pagans, and a Christian Fellowship ... we are coming to see ourselves as a microcosmic interfaith body, a congregation of many points of view, yet covenanted with one another in a spirit of trust, hope, and love ... The "good news" of Unitarianism is that it gives us a "safe house" in which to wage our own heresy. [vii]

For pluralism to work, we each must feel free to be spiritually ourselves, and must grant others the same right. We must be willing to entertain religious ideas and practices with which we may not agree, closing the door only to the various fundamentalisms which claim that they are the One True Way, and that everyone outside the fold is going to hell.

     Such pluralism is mirrored in our history. Unitarian history in North America is a story of a variety of movements - from the original Unitarian Christians, to Transcendentalists like Emerson, to the Religious Humanists, and so on. It is a story of continuous revolution, with each development adding new spiritual sources to the mix. Institutionally, we are the direct descendants of the Puritans of New England. What is most unique about our tradition is how, generation by generation, it has evolved - from Calvinism, to liberal Christianity, to a movement in which even science-minded atheists and Goddess-worshipping pagans have a place in the circle. And as one historian has noted, very often the radicals of one generation have come to be regarded as 100% Unitarians by their successors. [viii] 

Unitarian Christianity

     Let us now consider the six sources of our tradition in rough historical sequence. The faith of the original Unitarians was rooted in one source - the "Jewish and Christian teachings" of the Bible (source #4). In North America, it arose out of a liberal movement within the established Puritan churches of New England. [ix] The liberals took a sunny view of human nature and emphasized the role of reason in interpreting scripture. Their orthodox opponents made a big issue of the fact that they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and labelled them Unitarians - a label which they reluctantly came to accept. The liberal Christians were not all that eager to found a new sect. It was only when the orthodox forced the issue that the Puritan churches split, with the liberals forming the American Unitarian Association in 1825.

     Our subsequent history is a story of the gradual taking on board of new sources, and the gradual jettisoning of much of the doctrinal content of Christianity - until little more was left of it than the belief in a higher power and the injunction to love one's neighbour and do justice. Along the way, there were many heated controversies, with conservatives wanting to define Unitarianism in strictly Christian terms, and radicals wanting to push the envelope of religious freedom. At one point, some of the radicals even felt the need to split off and form their own Free Religious Association (in 1866). According to the radicals:

     (45) The fellowship of Christianity is limited by the Christian Confession ... The fellowship of Free Religion is universal and free ...

     (46) The practical work of Christianity is to Christianize the world, to convert all souls to the Christ ... The practical work of Free Religion is to humanize the world, to make the individual nobler here and now ...

     (47) The spiritual ideal of Christianity is suppression of self and perfect imitation of Jesus the Christ. The spiritual ideal of Free Religion is the free development of the self, and the harmonious education of all its powers to the highest possible degree. [x]

Although a small minority in their own time, the principles of Free Religion eventually won out over those of sectarian Christianity within our movement.  

Direct Experience

     Another source of Unitarianism (#1 on our list) is the "direct experience of transcending mystery and wonder" - a source which has not always been affirmed by Christian orthodoxy. For when religious authority is invested in the Bible and the Church, non-authorized religious experience may become a dangerous source of heresy.

     The importance of this source within Unitarian tradition owes a lot to the Transcendentalists - a group of ministers and literary figures, including Ralph Waldo Emerson and Theodore Parker, who challenged the newly-emerging Unitarian Christian orthodoxy of their day. Emerson upheld the importance of personal religious experience in a way that led him to undercut the special authority of the Bible. In his famous Divinity School Address (in 1838), he said that we should not think of revelation as something long ago given and done, as if God were dead (109). Rather, our age is in need of its own revelations (110). And he said that "the very word Miracle, as pronounced by the Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is a Monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain" (107). [xi] This means, I think, that we should learn to appreciate the mystery and wonder in the everyday course of nature, rather than look for special miracles (such as those allegedly performed by Jesus). Thus, for Unitarians, there is nothing necessarily supernatural about religious experience, just as there is no reason why "spirituality" cannot refer simply to the human spirit. 

Prophetic Women and Men

     Source #2 reflects Unitarian concern with social action and reform. It refers to "words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love." The word "prophetic" here invokes the example of the Old Testament prophets, who spoke out in favour of justice and against the powers that be. Such a focus was largely absent from historical Christianity. It was only in the later part of the 19th century that the social gospel began to emerge within liberal Protestantism - in response, at least in part, to left-wing critiques of religion from figures like Karl Marx.

     Within Unitarianism, a fine exemplar of this source was a man by the name of John Haynes Holmes. Holmes was a minister in New York City from 1907-1949. He was a socialist who wanted to shift the focus of religion from God to humanity, and from the individual soul to the community. He ended the practice of pew rental at his church and changed its name from the Church of the Messiah to the Community Church. He helped establish the American Civil Liberties Union and was a leading champion of Margaret Sanger and the Planned Parenthood movement. During World War I, he took a very unpopular stand as a pacifist, and in later years he became a great admirer and interpreter of Gandhi. [xii] For many people, Gandhi and Martin Luther King represent what it means to confront powers of evil - not self-righteously, in a spirit of bitterness and revenge, but with compassion and the transforming power of love. 

Humanist Teachings

     Source #5 is Humanism, which really only became influential among Unitarians in the 20th century, although its roots go back to Greek philosophy and the Enlightenment. Humanism councils us "to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science," and warns us "against idolatries of the mind and spirit." For me, it is important to affirm independent and critical thinking as a spiritual value, and to encourage people to "cherish their doubts." One of the most repugnant aspects of biblical religion is its message that faith is righteous and doubt is sinful. Thus, Father Abraham is held up as a hero of faith because he blindly accepted the word of Jehovah and was willing to sacrifice his son (Gen 22). And in the New Testament, "doubting Thomas" is ridiculed because he would not believe in the resurrection until he had confirmed it by touching the marks of the nails in Jesus' hands (Jn 20). The moral lesson here is clear: "Blessed are those who believe without evidence. To want to check things out for yourself is bad. To question religious authority is bad." Such teachings, of course, are completely opposed to the spirit of philosophy and science.

     Source #5 also warns us against idolatry. For those Sunday-schooled in the Old Testament, the word "idolatry" may bring to mind images of benighted heathens worshipping a block of wood or a golden calf as their god. However, the term has been redefined by modern liberal theologians, such as Paul Tillich. For Tillich, faith is idolatrous when it fixes on something partial, limited, or finite, worshipping it to the exclusion of all others expressions of the ultimate. [xiii] An example of such partial devotion is the attitude of many fundamentalists to their Bibles - an attitude that one might call "Bibliolatry." However, even such things as Reason, Science, and Social Justice may become idols, if one defines them narrowly, worships them exclusively, and demands the sacrifice of all other values in their name. Idolatry in this sense breeds black-and-white thinking. It urges us to equate one narrow tradition with the Word of God, or one partial ideal with The Good.

     The Unitarian tradition, on the other hand, offers us many sources to draw upon. The challenge it leaves us with is not so much one of crusading for the triumph of light over darkness, but of finding a way to balance a variety of worthy ideals. Our first source affirms individual religious experience and spirituality. The second affirms social action in pursuit of justice. Others affirm Christian love, Humanist critical thinking, Pagan reverence for the earth, and Wisdom wherever it may be found. As individuals, each of us will find some of these sources more inspiring than others. But as a community, we are "grateful for the religious pluralism" which gives us a chance "to deepen our understanding and expand our vision." 

Alternative Spiritualities

     What about the third and the sixth sources? I haven't said much about "wisdom from the world's religions" or "spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions." It is only in the last few decades that these sources have made a big impact on Unitarianism. Our movement has long attracted people looking for an alternative to traditional Christianity. Until the 1960's, the main alternative to Biblical religion seemed to be reason, science, and building the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. A large number of those seeking a home in our congregations were skeptics and atheists. Humanism came to be the leading outlook among Unitarians. Since then, there has arisen an increasing hunger for alternative modes of spirituality. Hence there are now growing numbers of Unitarian Buddhists and Unitarian Pagans. The appeal of Pagan or Earth-based spirituality is now second only to Humanism. [xiv] This has led to conflicts in some congregations between what we might call the rationalists and the mystics. Ultimately, however, if religious liberals are to develop a vital and compelling alternative to old-time religion, we must draw on both head and heart, reason and ritual, science and poetry, our critical intellect and our deepest intuitions. The yin and the yang of our faith must be encouraged to balance and enrich one another. I myself am a UU Humanist, a person who is very much committed to the life of reason. But from a UU Pagan perspective, Margot Adler has said much the same thing:

            I guess I chose UUism because I need to live in balance. I can do all those wonderful, earth-centered spiritual things: sing under the stars, drum for hours, create moving ceremonies for the changes of the seasons or the passage of time in the lives of men and women. But I also need to be a worldly, down-to-earth person in a complicated world - someone who believes oppression is real, that tragedies happen, that chaos happens, that not everything is for a purpose. UUism gives me a place to be at home with some of my closest friends: my doubts ... I love the fact that Unitarian Universalists have a good many atheists and humanists among them. After all, it's important to have a reality check ... And I think, in turn, the Pagan community has brought to UUism the joy of ceremony and a lot of creative and artistic ability that will leave the denomination with a richer liturgy and a bit more juice and mystery. [xv]