Would being many be harder than being one?

Table of Content

David Soliday asks in a comment at this entry to expound on my thoughts.

Sure.

I really believe that Unitarianism and Universalism were re-tooled in the years after the Second World War, and leading towards consolidation in 1961, to be a joint theological "other" from what had existed before. Some examples. In those early years, the Unitarian fellowship movement, heavily tinctured by materialistic humanism, got started; the Universalist General Convention was denied membership in the National Council of Churches for being insuffiently Christian (and thus leaving only one natural source for fellowship, the Unitarians); the Massachusetts Universalist Convention spawned the hell-beast known as the Charles Street Meeting House, as a field lab for a rather heady, if lyric, form of syncritism; and ministerial exchanges between the Unitarians and Universalists sealed the deal.

Its a shame nobody told the Christians, who have been acting as a rump parliament in both traditions ever since. (The organization which became the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship also dates to that period. I've noticed it is among the Christians that you are more than usually likely to find a "Unitarian" or a "Universalist" and not the double moniker.)

Donald Harrington's 1960 General Assembly sermon, Unitarian Universalism: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrowwe had a new theology, but didn't really tell us how we got there, except perhaps by de-emphasizing Christianity as past and passe. We did get a new identity, that is, Unitarian Universalism qua sect, and a rather triumphal ("America's fourth religion") and gnostic ("Are you a Unitarian without knowing it?") at that. It would be inconceivable to think that one of our own would be invited as an ecumenical delegate to a hypothetical Vatican III, but James Luther Adams was there for Vatican II. (Of course, Rome has moved too.) We're not in the American consciousness, and it isn't exactly because we were pushed off the map. We jumped.

I might believe that syncritism, as Unitarian Universalism has made it, and as I dub it "world-religionism," might work if the self-congratulating, distant, and (at times, the worst ones to be sure) xenophobic sectarianism we've inherited didn't really say that we're not serious about a theological interface from many sides.

First, it is because we have nothing like peace about God, and without God, any serious engagement with monotheism or polytheism is moot. (How many times have you heard Buddhism lauded and defended because it isn't theist?)

Second, I believe that to understand other languages you need a deep understanding of one with which to have a point of reference, and "garden variety Unitarian Universalism" (my term) doesn't allow that depth to take place.

Third, we are wed to the priviledge of class (that is, middle posing as upper) embolded by education, and overfed self-praise, and that makes it almost impossible to exhort anyone to do anything. Have you noticed that Unitarian Universalistm, for a group that's putatively interfaith, is indifferent to theological developments outside its own borders, and has no institutional will to cultivate spiritual disciplines among the rank-and-file?

I'm not sure what the best option for a future for Unitarian Universalism is, but I don't think our present trajectory is viable. I am in this dialogue to develop a set of solutions when the ears are ready to hear.

There are many reasons I became a Christian -- I wasn't one when I entered Unitarian Universalism -- but high on the list was spiritual self-preservation. Without an "other" to reach for, and lean on -- that is, God, Jesus Christ, and the Church Universal -- I would have been adrift, and out the door.

3 Replies to “Would being many be harder than being one?”

  1. “Have you noticed that Unitarian Universalism, for a group that’s putatively interfaith, is indifferent to theological developments outside its own borders…?”

    Preach it, brother!

    It is ironic that most UUs are no longer meaningfully engaged with the doctrinal positions for which they were named. Any doubt about this can be removed by considering the lack of interest expressed in last summer’s unitarian heresy trial scheduled for Andrew Furlong, a Church of Ireland minister, or the African-American minister who recently had to leave his church for preaching universal salvation. There are still lively debates in religion about unitaianism and universalism, but Unitarian Universalists de-emphasize theology so much and replace it with cultural and political identification to such an extent, that many of us no longer find these debates relevant – which is a shame, I think, because we miss opportunities to invigorate the religious thought of our movement by failing reach out to people who could teach us something about our own theology.

  2. Hey Scott,
    Just checking here–your position is that Unitarianism and Universalism were intentionally changed in order to be more palatable? To each other? To society at large?

    Was this an intentional theological movement away from God for some purpose? I’ve always thought of it as a response to social movements in the academic and secular realms–in other words that U and U theologies changed as people’s views about science, religion, and God changed.

    While I can understand that the Charles Street Meeting House was not your cup of tea, I’d hate to think of it as some sort of manipulative experiment. I think the people involved found something there that sustained them and captured their religious imagination. Sure, it may have been misguided in it’s attempts to create a “melting pot” religion. But that mistake was being innocently made in nearly all realms of human endeavor…

    I have to admit here a real discomfort with what sounded like a way of recasting all of 20th century U and U history as something shallow and pretentious. And I think my knickers get in a twist because I don’t hear anything that passes as respect or affection for Unitarian Universalism in your posts. It’s as if we’re all out to exclude and revile Christians.

    So what I’d like to hear is what you love about Unitarian Universalism and why you give so much to minister among us?

  3. Very elucidating. I’m going to let this seep in a while for further reflection but my initial reaction is that in this dialogue is where I want to be. I am curious to hear your response to Rev. Parker’s comment, but here are some initial thoughts on your first two points:

    1. I think this is Pres. Sinkford’s point as well. We have lost a language of reverence, therefore we have fallen out of dialogue with other denominations and theological public debate.

    2. This point will probably be the first to spark a trackback on my own blog, because I agree with you. I would just like to explore my own points of reference. I feel I have substantial depth in more than one, but have concerns about my state of current practice…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.