|
By Dr. Bruce T. Marshall
January 30, 2011
READING
From “Confessions of a Unitarian Christian”
by David Rankin
If it is not easy to be a Unitarian Universalist, and if it is not
easy to be a Christian—then it is certainly a trial to be both.
I remember meeting with the pulpit committee of a large Unitarian
Universalist church in the East. It was a very congenial meeting
until one of the members asked about my personal theology. When I
replied that I was a Christian, the faces turned suddenly to stone
and the room went dead. Finally, after the longest meditation I had
ever endured, the Chairman said, :”Well, maybe we won't have to tell
anyone.” I said goodbye—forever!
I remember another incident, in Philadelphia, when I spoke on the
theme of Christian symbolism in literature. I was asked to attend a
sermon discussion after the service in the basement of the church.
When I arrived, a man was screaming loudly, pounding on a table, and
throwing ash-trays to the floor. As I approached he shouted: “We
have a free pulpit in this church, and we don't want any of that
Christian garbage!” Like W.C. Fields, I have never returned to
Philadelphia.
Finally, I remember an incident in San Francisco. Soon after I had
accepted the call to be the minister of the First Unitarian Church,
I received a letter from a man who warned me to stay in
Massachusetts. He was not only disturbed that I was a Christian, he
was absolutely incensed over the fact that I believed in God. He
warned that if I came to San Francisco, my wife and children would
be harmed. I wrote him a note asking him to respect my religion as
much as I respected his psychosis.
I think there are many reasons why some people are angered and
confused by the term, “Unitarian Universalist Christian.”
First: There is the belief that since Unitarian Universalist
churches are not Christian churches, you will not find Christians
within them. It is a belief that does not recognize the diversity
and richness of our tradition.
Second: There is the belief that since Christianity is a singular
theological tradition, it is impossible for the adherent to
appreciate other traditions. It is a belief that does not perceive
how a commitment to one object may actually heighten the awareness
and appreciation of others.
Third: There is the belief that Unitarian Universalism is
progressive and Christianity is reactionary, so they are
incompatible. This is a belief that is blind to the reactionary
elements of Unitarian Universalism and the progressive elements of
Christianity.
Christianity is a little too personal, a little too close, and a
little too threatening for some of our people. All tolerance is
forgotten. This is not an unusual reaction (and I must confess—I
often enjoy the heat it engenders), for one of the most explosive
questions in the entire history of civilization has been: “What is a
Christian?”
It was a question that deeply troubled the disciples of Jesus while
he still walked the earth. “Who is he?” “What does he mean?”
It was a question that divided the leaders of the Early Church
immediately following his death. “Who was he?” “What did he say?”
It was a question that consumed the energies of a thousand
theologians; that split the movement into a hundred factions; that
resulted in bitterness, persecution, war, and inquisition.
So too Unitarian Universalists are not immune from the passion and
prejudice stimulated by the question: “What is a Christian?”
SERMON
George Will, the conservative columnist who writes for the
Washington Post, attended the Sunday school of the Unitarian
Universalist Church of Urbana, Illinois, when he was growing up. It
must have been a traumatic experience for the young conservative,
and he hasn’t ever gotten over it. For he loves to throw occasional
zingers our way. Such as, in one column he wrote, “It is possible to
be a Unitarian Christian, but why bother?”
His intent in that essay was not to argue a theological point, but
to pave the way for a second assertion. It is also possible, he
continued, to be a liberal Republican but, again, why bother?
Both liberal Republicans and Unitarian Universalist Christians will
take offense at being so abruptly dismissed, but the question
remains: why? It can't be easy to be a liberal Republican. And it
certainly isn't easy to be a Unitarian Universalist Christian.
So why do it? There is no shortage of Christian churches in this
country. No matter where you are, it should not be difficult to find
one or more moderate-to-liberal Christian congregations. In some
areas you will find Christian churches that are more progressive and
activist than the local UU congregation. So why be a minority in
Unitarian Universalism when you could be in the majority somewhere
else?
Such in my starting point for a four-part sermon series in which I
consider some of the basic faiths contained within our Unitarian
Universalist congregations: Christianity, theism, humanism,
paganism, and mysticism. Most of us don’t go around labeling
ourselves as any of these isms—we are more likely just to consider
ourselves Unitarian Universalists. But it can be helpful to try to
articulate and understand the varieties of belief contained within
our religious family. As it might also encourage us to clarify our
own ways of believing. If you are at all like me, you’ll find
something you respond to it each of these faith perspectives.
● ● ●
We begin, then, with Unitarian Universalist Christianity.
In the early days of our movement, both Unitarians and Universalists
were clear that they were Christian. There was, to them, no
contradiction in the terms, Unitarian Christian or Universalist
Christian.
The early Universalists saw themselves as reformers who sought to
correct what they saw as errors in Christian orthodoxy. While those
who were to become Unitarians had no interest in forming separate
churches under a new name. These early Unitarians preferred to call
themselves “Practical Christians” or just plain Christians, for they
believed that theirs was the way of true Christianity. Only when the
orthodox refused to associate with them, did the liberals accept the
name, “Unitarian,” and the necessity for separate congregations with
that name and outlook.
William Ellery Channing, a leader among these liberals, would have
preferred to remain a “just plain Christian.” But in the face of
attacks by the orthodox, he felt compelled to make a statement of
what he and his brother and sister religious liberals believed. In
1819, he delivered a sermon just up the road from here in
Baltimore—in the newly-formed First Independent Church, now First
Unitarian Church of Baltimore. In his sermon called Unitarian
Christianity, he set forth three affirmations of this faith. These
provided the theological foundation for the development of American
Unitarianism.
First, the humanity of Jesus. These religious liberals understood
Jesus as a man, not a God. They rejected the orthodox doctrine of
the trinity which says that God is three: father, son, and holy
spirit. They believed that God is one—hence, the name Unitarian—and
that Jesus was a man—a guide, a teacher, a prophet—not a part of
God. Jesus was to be followed, learned from, but not worshipped. For
Channing, the most important thing about Jesus was not how he
died—not the death and resurrection—but how he lived. It was a
radical notion then; it still is today.
Channing’s second affirmation of Unitarian Christianity: the
goodness of God. Like the Universalists, Unitarians believed that
the power that creates and sustains the universe is a loving force,
not the angry, sometimes vengeful god claimed by the orthodox of
that era. The early Unitarians believed in what the contemporary UU
Christian, Carl Scovel, has nicely articulated as “the promise that
the mystery in which we live wills good to all.”
Third, the validity of human experience and human capacities,
particularly reason. Religious orthodoxy did not trust human
capacities as a means to determining truth for they believed that we
are tainted by original sin. The liberals, on the other hand, saw
reason as a means by which people could investigate and understand
both the world and their faith. As such, they inherited the faith of
the founders of our nation who believed that the best foundation for
a free society is collective wisdom of people working together, not
an authoritarian structure.
With these three pillars—a human Jesus, a loving God, and trust in
human experience and reason—Unitarian Christianity had its
beginnings. For these religious liberals, “Unitarian” was the
adjective that modified “Christian.” It was not a separate religious
option but identified a specific way of being Christian.
● ● ●
Much has changed between then and now. Today, most Unitarian
Universalist congregations do not consider themselves Christian,
although some do, almost all of these in New England. In most UU
congregations, there are some members who are Christian, but the
churches, themselves, are not Christian.
There are several reasons for this transition from Unitarians and
Universalists considering themselves to be Christian to Unitarian
Universalists being mostly not Christian.
1. Subsequent generations of reformers within religious liberalism
reached beyond the borders of Christianity. The literary and
philosophical movement known as transcendentalism that brought
together such luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David
Thoreau, and Margaret Fuller had its beginnings among Unitarian
ministers who found God expressed in other contexts than those
specifically Christian—such as, in nature, in music, literature, and
in human relationships. The transcendentalists saw God all around,
not just in the stories and teachings of Christianity.
2. A second reason for the movement beyond the borders of
Christianity has roots that pre-date Unitarianism. This was the
suspicion of creeds which goes back to the Puritans. The early
Puritans who settled Massachusetts and New England refused any
statement of creed to which all had to adhere. They believed creeds
to be human creations that placed inappropriate limitations upon our
experience of God. Today, the lack of a creed is a defining feature
in Unitarian Universalism. No congregation with a creed can be part
of our association. But where the Puritans were based in a creedless
Christian belief, over time that creedlessness encouraged us to
stretch beyond the boundaries of Christianity, such as, into the
realms of world religions. Unitarians were among the first groups of
Christian heritage that reached out to the non-Western, non
Judeo-Christian religions. In so doing, they affirmed that there is
truth in many faiths as they are good people in many faiths.
3. A third reason for our drift from Christian identity has been the
humanist movement, which had its beginnings in the late 1800s and
became a powerful force in the early 20th century. The humanists
asserted that to be religious you not only do not have to be a
Christian, you also don't have to believe in God. The faith of the
humanists focused on this world—on the pain and the possibilities of
being human.
4. And one more factor: Unitarian and Universalist congregations
often drew members who were refugees from Christian churches. These
were people who had been hurt, who had been rejected, who had sought
support and comfort from Christianity and been disappointed. Often,
those who became Unitarians and Universalists did so in protest
against their experience of Christianity, and so a bias against
Christianity began to form.
I am sure there are other reasons for this transition from the early
Unitarian Christian churches to the non-Christian Unitarian
Universalist churches of today, but these will suffice. It becomes
easy enough to see how Unitarian Universalism has moved beyond the
borders of Christianity. It might not be as easy to understand how
and why there are still Christians in our ranks.
In the most recent survey of Davies members, 16% identified
themselves as Christian. I am always surprised by how many
self-identified Christians there are in our congregations. They make
for a very silent minority.
● ● ●
What is it today to be a Unitarian Universalist Christian? As might
be expected, different people come at the question in different
ways.
The Unitarian Universalist minister, Harry Hoehler, offered this
approach.
He said that that there are two basic approaches to being Christian.
The first he called the creedal or doctrinal way. In this,
Christianity becomes a matter of believing the doctrines of your
denomination: perhaps the virgin birth, the resurrection of the
body, the idea of the trinity. In this approach, being a Christian
means affirming these creedal statements.
Much of Christianity, Harry Hoehler stated, remains wedded to this
creedal way: the assertion that what makes you a Christian is what
you believe.
But a minority in Christianity seeks another way. They contend that
the great tragedy of Christianity is its habit of seeking conformity
of belief and of imposing that conformity upon others. So much blood
has been shed, so many peoples driven apart, so much harm has been
done as one group has sought to compel others to its way. So much
effort has been wasted trying to enforce doctrine, rather than
searching for truth, rather than offering compassion and care and
love.
For this minority of Christians, the creeds about Jesus are not
nearly so important as the example of Jesus, himself: how he lived,
what he stood for, the vision he proclaimed. The essence of this way
of being Christian is to remember Jesus and to live as Jesus
inspires one to live.
From this perspective, being a Christian assumes the nature of a
pilgrimage which must be undertaken with openness and humility. One
accepts the continuing challenge to live in response to the message
of the New Testament, a message that Harry Hoehler interpreted as,
“Come, trust that your life can be made new. Do so by responding to
Jesus as a person. Learn how his life points to how you should live
yours.”
The non-creedal approach to Christianity, then, focuses on the
person of Jesus, not on the doctrines of the church. This faith is
that in encountering whatever we can know of him, we are changed. We
will be challenged to be more fully the people we can be.
● ● ●
Unitarian Universalist Christians, then, are those who follow a
non-creedal Christianity. But there are several ways to be a
non-creedal Unitarian Universalist Christian. A friend of mine, Tom
Wintle, who is a minister and leader among UU Christians—has
identified four ways of being Christian within Unitarian
Universalism.
The first he calls classical Unitarian and Universalist Christians.
These follow what they call “the religion of Jesus, not the religion
about Jesus.” They are comfortable with the simple forms of
Christian worship—such as, communion and christenings—only if
observed as memorials to the life of Jesus. They reject suggestions
of any underlying magic to these rituals. Most would affirm David
Rankin's definition of a Christian: “I would identify a Christian as
a person who demonstrates his love of God and the world through the
example of his life.”
The second way Tom identifies as the “catholic Christians.” That is,
“catholic” with a small “c.” These are attracted to an ecumenical
Christianity that is not confined by the doctrines or practices of
any one tradition. They are comfortable within Unitarian
Universalism because here they find a theological freedom afforded
in few other congregations, a freedom that enables them to reach
beyond what they consider the artificial boundaries separating
Christians from other people of faith.
A third way may be called the “Liberation Christians.” These find in
Christianity a radical call to liberate the oppressed. They
emphasize the prophetic and ethical demands they find in the life of
Jesus. “Whether the issue is urban ministry or international
ministry, poverty or human liberation,” they find in the life of
Jesus a spirit, “to inspire, empower, embarrass, and challenge; to
demand a world better than it is now.”
Finally, a fourth way, which Tom identifies as “Questioning
Christians.” These are “drawn to Christianity, attracted to the
figure of Jesus, but uncertain of what it all means or how to
reconcile Christian faith with the assumptions and the skepticism of
a modern secular world.” In Unitarian Universalism these
“Questioning Christians” are drawn by our freedom from creed, our
freedom from hierarchy, and our freedom from set liturgy. This
freedom offers room to explore and to develop one’s own faith.
Perhaps it may seem confusing to feature so many faith options under
one institutional umbrella, but it also can be wonderfully rich and
creative. It is because of that richness and creativity—as well as
the underlying freedom—that Unitarian Universalist Christians choose
to be Christian in a Unitarian Universalist context. It's why they
bother, to address George Will's question.
This is also why non-Christians choose a Unitarian Universalist
congregation: the openness to explore, the joy and challenge of a
diversity of beliefs, the conviction that a congregation gathered in
conformity misses something basic of the human experience. Those of
us who choose a Unitarian Universalist congregation do so because of
the room to explore and express our spirituality. This is true for
Christian and non-Christian alike.
● ● ●
So what about me? Am I a Unitarian Universalist Christian?
No. I am not.
I find it difficult to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and I
am agnostic on the question of life after death, but that's not why
I am not a Christian. I do not consider belief in a literal
resurrection a requirement of Christianity.
I don't believe in the trinity, I do not consider the miracles
attributed to Jesus as evidence of his unique status, he seems to me
to fit better in the tradition of the Jewish prophets than as a new
and special and unique presence. But my failure to see his absolute
uniqueness is not why I'm not a Christian.
I am disturbed by the propensity in Christianity toward violence and
oppression—a habit shown throughout its history. I am wary of the
Christian right in this country and what I consider to be the harm
they do in the name of Christianity (and in the name of patriotism),
but this is not why I am not a Christian. There are as many
Christians opposed to the Christian right as there are
non-Christians.
I am not a person who finds benefit in creeds, doctrines, or
standardized practices. Certainty in religious faith is not a
comfort to me: I treasure the freedom to explore and wonder and
create. But as I've tried to point out, doctrine is not essential to
Christianity.
My reason for not being Christian is really very simple. It is
because Jesus is not the central figure that helps me understand my
spirituality. I do not find the story of Jesus to be my story.
I don't reject his example or his story as I don’t reject those who
follow that path—it’s just that it's not mine. To be a Christian—UU
Christian or otherwise—is to follow Jesus. While I am intrigued by
Jesus and challenged by Jesus, he is not my guide, he is not my
savior. I have never found the deep connection with him that I think
you must have to be Christian.
My own spirituality is more free-form than can be contained in one
person or one story. I may follow Jesus to some degree, but I also
follow Buddha and Albert Schweitzer and Eleanor Roosevelt and Johnny
Appleseed. I'm not claiming that mine is the best way—just that it's
my way. It is authentic to me. And so even though I grant that being
Christian can be a very good thing, it would not a good thing for
me.
● ● ●
Someone once remarked to me, “Unitarian Universalist Christian:
Isn’t that an oxymoron?” As I’ve tried to show this morning, it’s
not. There are ways of being Christian that fit into our Unitarian
Universalist tradition and into our practice. We are fortunate to
have Christians among us. They teach us, they challenge us, they
sometimes inspire us—even as Jesus does for them.
If there is one message the Unitarian Universalist Christians have
for the rest of us, it is this: don't forget Jesus, don't ignore
Jesus. Even though he might not be central to your theology, still,
he might yet have something to say to you.
David Rankin wrote,
“My reality is the original Jesus: In the swiftness of his decision,
in the finality of his resolution, in the challenging and stinging
hyperbole with which he tried to arouse the indolent, the dull, and
the conventional—I see a person sure of himself, sure of his
universe, sure of his God. In my weakness, I need that example.”
And the words of another Unitarian Christian, Albert Schweitzer, who
at the end of his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, wrote,
“He comes to us as one unknown, without a name, as of old by the
lakeside, he came to those men who knew him not. He speaks to us the
same word: 'Follow thou me!' and sets us to the tasks that he has to
fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey, whether
they be wise or simple, He will reveal himself in the toils, the
conflicts, the sufferings that they shall pass through in his
fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their
own experience who he is.”
|
