“RELIGION WITH A DIFFERENCE”

 

 

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

Sunday, September 11, 2005

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

 

            One of the cultural diseases that infects human society around the world today is what I have come to think of as “Thwackumism.”  I take the name from a passage found in a classic novel by the 18th century English writer Henry Fielding.  The book is called Tom Jones, and one of the characters in the book is an Anglican priest known as Parson Thwackum.  During a discussion of religion, Parson Thwackum decides to make his position on the subject crystal clear, leaving no question about what the word “religion” means.  Here is what he said: 

 

"When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant reli­gion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England." 

 

            So there you have it:  “Thwackumism.”  “Thwackumism” is the practice of defining religion such that its boundaries do not extend beyond anything that isn’t your own religion.

Thwackumism is a very common approach to religion.  That is to say, it is not necessarily uncommon that to an Anglican, the word "reli­gion" does means the Church of England; to a Moslem, the word "reli­gion" means Islam, and to a Mormon, the word "religion" means Mormon­ism.  Actually, this can extend to styles of religion as well as denominations.  To a mystic, of any religious brand, very often the word "reli­gion" means mystical experience -- everything else is less than genuine.  To a fundamentalist, the word "reli­gion" means funda­mentalism, interpreting the scriptures literally, for example – everything else is less than genuine.  And so forth. 

            You may have seen a column in the Star that reported on one recent example of Thwackumism.  A year or so ago, the Comptroller of the State of Texas, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, denied religious tax exempt status to the Red River Unitarian Universalist Church in Denison, Texas.  It seems Ms. Strayhorn, an apparent disciple of Parson Thwackum, did not consider Unitarian Universalism to be religious – or at least religious enough to be so recognized by the government for purposes of tax exemption. 

            In denying religious status to the church, Ms. Strayhorn charged that it “doesn’t have one (single) system of belief.”  This is a charge to which the only legitimate reply is “guilty!”  On the other hand, that is precisely what a free religion is all about.  It is a creedless religion, one in which members are not required to subscribe to a specific dogma.  Free religion is the backbone of Unitarian Universalism, and its commitment to freedom as well as to religion goes back centuries. 

            But this is probably not sufficient for followers of the reductionist philosophy of Thwackumism, such as the Texas Comptroller represents.  She had her office’s lawyer, Jessie Ancira, try to clarify her decision.  The test for religion, he said, is simple: it has to involve “a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power.”  The implication is that the Red River Unitarian Church doesn’t demand such a belief of its membership, and it is therefore not religious.  To the charge that it doesn’t demand such a belief, the only legitimate reply is “guilty.”  Like most Unitarian Universalist congregations, Red River’s membership includes theists as well as atheists, agnostics as well as New Age mystics.  All are welcome and respected for who they are, not because of what they do or don’t believe in terms of metaphysical speculation about gods. 

            It may in fact be that some religions define themselves in terms of conformity to a specified creed.  Unitarian Universalism is not one of them.  Neither, by the way, are most forms of Buddhism, which also treats belief in God as optional.  Texas Thwackumism, by the standards of its Comptroller, would seem to question the religious status of the Buddhist tradition, which has a much longer history than Christianity. 

            The Comptroller stood her ground, for a while at least.  It seems that come years earlier her predecessor had made the same judgment of an Ethical Culture group, who sued.  In that case, both a lower court and the Texas Supreme Court upheld the right of religious freedom.  One appeals court summarized the case by saying that the Comptroller’s religious test “fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment protection.” 

            It was with this background that the case became publicized, and Strayhorn promised to pursue her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  “Otherwise,” she is quoted as saying, “any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween will be applying for an exemption.” 

            It only took about a week after the issue became publicized, though, for her office to reverse its decision.  However it happened, it seems that the Constitution won over Thwackumism.  The state eventually decided to grant tax exemption to the Red River Unitarian Church of Denison, Texas. 

 

            It may be that modern-day Thwackumists can’t understand Unitarianism as a religion.  But then, I suppose, the Amish may consider Roman Catholicism to be an odd example of a religion, and the Rastafarians look mighty strange in the eyes of a South­ern Baptist.  And vice-versa.  Religions have differences, and it is not he role of government to stand in judgment of those differences. 

 

            There is no question in my mind that Unitarian Universalism is a religion with a difference.  What makes us different – more than anything else, I believe – is our profound commitment to freedom in religion.  It is difficult for many people even to imagine a religion that doesn’t require a specific religious creed.  But in fact our religion is about how to live far more than what to believe.  Our religion is about values more than creeds.  And anyone who honors by their lives tolerance, open-mindedness, caring for others, reason, and freedom are welcome in our fellowship, no matter how many gods they do or do not believe in. 

            We are a religion with a difference, and that difference is about freedom. 

 

            But I also believe that our religious approach tends to attract people of faith who are, shall we say, just a little bit different.  Here we find wonderful people – warm, caring, intelligent, sincere, inquisitive – but in some ways just-a-little different from the population at large.   And I want to look just a little closer at what makes us different – not so much in terms of belief, but rather in terms of the kind of people we are and attract.  I believe we tend to draw a different psychological type than is often found in other religious groups.  Put differently, I believe our psychological needs and desires are different.  What we seek from religion is not necessarily different from what others seek.  But what satisfies our religious needs is different from what satisfies the needs of many others. 

I think there is, if you’ll excuse the expression, a “peculiar” Unitarian Universalist personality.  I think to some extent this illustrates why we are a religion with a difference.  I will list some characteristics, but I hasten to add that each of these charac­ter­istics has its posi­tive and negative psychological form.  What I am to describe about Unitarian Universalists is not always a pretty picture. 

 

So here is my "UU psycho­logical profile"; why we are different from others. 

The first personality character­istic of Unitarian Universalists is an unusual need for a personal sense of independence.  Independence, in this sense, means that we don't let others give us the answers to life's great questions, but we rely on our own authority, and wish to dis­cover the answers for ourselves.  "Inde­pen­dence" means not depending on some outside authority.  This need for inde­pendent thought is not a theological statement, it is psychological.

And this is the reason we never have had, nor will we ever have, a creed.  This is the rea­son we recognize no bible as final authority. This is the reason we encourage people to speak their minds, even when we don't agree with them 

Independence of thought and belief.  In our hymnbook is a song sung by Uni­tarian Univer­salists around the continent, with words by the 17th century poet Henry Wotton.  These words speak of the triumph of inde­pendence: 

 

   How happy are they born or taught,

   That serveth not another's will;

   Their armor is their honest thought,

   And simple truth their highest skill.

 

I have a theory about Unitarian Universalists.  I believe that many, or maybe even most of us, had a common experience sometime in childhood.  Sometime in our develop­ment we found ourselves alone in defend­ing a particular point of view.  In school or in church or in the family or in scouts or in whatever group, I think we found ourselves defending a position that was not generally accepted by those around us. 

I know this was true for me.  In high school, for example, my political and religious views were very much in the minority. 

It is my strong sus­picion that such an experience is gener­ally true for many Unitarian Universalists.  I admit that such an exper­ience is not unique to us; after all, there are plenty of others who defend unpopular views with­out being in dan­ger of becoming a Unitar­ian Universalist. However, my theory of the UU psycho­logical development has more to it than that.  What makes us differ­ent, I think, is that we found that experience to be somehow exciting, some­how self-assuring, somehow satisfying.  Being alone, or nearly alone, in our convic­tions gave us a deep sense of indepen­dence:  we did not need some outside authority to tell us what was right.  What makes us different from others, I think, is that we don't fear being in the minority.  In fact, we sometimes even feel good about it, about being indepen­dent. 

By and large, our love of indepen­dence makes us admire, along with Thor­eau, that person who marches to the rhythm of a different drummer, and we join with Thoreau in suggesting, "Let people step to the music they hear, however measured or far away."

So the first characteristic of the "UU psychological profile" is that deep need for inde­pendence, seeking to dis­cover answers for our­selves, and not simply accepting what we are taught.

But this characteristic is not without its negative forms, its danger­ous forms, and UUs sometimes slip into those negative manifestations of craving independence.  For example, some­times UUs slip from indepen­dence into what is called "counter-depen­d­ence." What is "counter-dependence?"  Well, if "depen­dence" means needing to have some out­side authority, and if "independence" means not needing to have some outside authority, then "counter-dependence" means "needing to have some outside authority--in order to oppose it." The counter-dependent person des­perately needs to oppose authority, and unless they have some authority object to oppose, they are not happy. 

At our best, Unitarian Universalists have a strong need to nurture the independent mind and spirit.  Though at times, I must confess, we confuse indepen­dence with counter-depen­dence. 

 

My second UU profile-- or why we are different from others-- is that we are people who don't have a psycho­logical need to have all our questions answered with certainty.  By and large, ambiguous answers to life's great ques­tions are not psychologi­cally trouble­some for us. This is one reason why Unitarian Universalists are different from so many other religious groups who are anxious to find those final answers. 

This is why we love discussions, especially when there is respectful disagree­ment.  We aren't after certain answers.  This is why we talk so much about "the search for truth," rather than "Truth" itself. Little bits and pieces of truth can be just as inspiring to us as giant, absolute, and immutable Truth can be inspiring to others with a different religious bent. 

The humility of Unitarian Univer­salism takes a peculiar form.  It is the kind of humility that says, "I be­lieve such and such... but I may be wrong."  The "I may be wrong" phrase is a recog­ni­tion of the ambiguous nature of life, the ambiguous nature of truth. 

At a UUA General Assembly some years ago, I attended a seminar called "A Bud­dhist/Chri­stian Dialogue."  There were two speakers; both were well known Unitarian Univer­salist ministers.  One UU was a Buddhist, and had completed require­ments to be accepted into a sect of Buddhist practitioners.  The other UU minister was a Christian, a Uni­tarian Christian.

This Buddhist/Christian Dialogue was most interesting.  It was not a debate.  There was no pretense that either one was trying to convince us that they had some ultimate truth.  And in fact, I doubt that any one of us there expected to hear either of them offer some ultimate and certain truth.  Rather, this was a "dialogue," with one person saying, "here is the version of truth that I have found," and the other saying, "here is the version of truth that I have found."  The audience benefited from both, and were not shocked by the fact that neither tried to con­vert us or offer us certain an­swers.  They offered us answers that were fal­lible, partial, and I think, helpful.

 

So Unitarian Universalists are different from other religious groups because they neither expect nor require certainty in their answers; because every expression of conviction is fol­lowed by an implicit, if not explicit, recognition that, "I may be wrong." 

But this profile also has its nega­tive and dangerous side.  The negative form of being com­fortable with ambiguity is lacking any conviction at all, being wishy-washy. 

I know this problem, because there are many times when I find it difficult to make up my mind, knowing that there are many sides of truth.  And there are times in which I fear myself to be rep­resen­tative of wishy-washy Unitarian Universalists.  It is very difficult for me to adopt a specific label.  I know mystic Unitar­ians, and humanist Unitarians, and athe­ist Unitarians, pagan Unitarians, and pantheist Unitar­ians -- and even one who calls himself a neo-Zoroastrian Unitarian.  But I find it difficult to adopt any one of these labels for myself, partly because I see some truth in all of them. 

While I usually don't think of myself as lacking convic­tion, I can easily see how accepting the ambiguity of truth can lead many of us into a conviction­less belief system:  "They're all right and they're all wrong, and I'm not going to decide because I don't want to limit my options." 

The profile of the Unitarian Universalist per­sonality includes the fact that we tend not to need certainty of belief because lack of certainty is usually not threat­ening to us.  But we also run that risk of being so open to all ideas, that there is no conviction left to make life challenging. 

 

A third UU psychological profile that makes us different is closely related to this last one.  We fully expect our beliefs to change over time.  We welcome change in religion, and see this as one indication of prog­ress. 

A person's attitude toward change is mostly controlled by psychology.  Some people are uncomfortable and dis­oriented by changing beliefs.  Others feel quite comfor­table with new ways of believing.  UUs, by and large, fit the latter to the extreme, and are not only comfortable with changing ideas, but actually welcome that change, actually invite those new beliefs. 

We search widely for new ideas, new insights, hoping for deeper understand­ings.  This is the reason we put no bounds on our search. This is why the Bible is only one of many sources of insight for us. This is why the specif­ics of Unitarian Universalist beliefs today are quite different from those of 100 years ago, and the next generation of UUs will no doubt hold beliefs dif­ferent from ours.

An old Unitarian aphorism says that "revelation is continu­ing." Each new discovery is a revelation of truth which may often change our own opinions and ideas. 

Religious truth is a growing, evol­ving, ever-changing human passion.  William Channing Gannett, a 19th century Unitarian minister, wrote a hymn about the changing revelation of Truth, and it is sung in many Unitarian Universalist churches every­where.  Here is a selection of lines from that hymn: 

 

It sounds along the ages,

soul answering to soul;

It kindles in the pages,

of every Bible scroll.

From Sinai's cliffs it echoed,

it breathed from Buddha's tree.      

It charmed in Athens' market,

it hallowed Galilee. 

The hammer-stroke of Luther,

the Pilgrim's seaside prayer,

The oracles of Concord,

one holy word declare. 

It calls, and lo, new justice,

it speaks and lo, new truth.

In ever nobler stature, and

unex­hausted youth. 

 

The Unitarian Universalist approach to new truth can be seen throughout our history.  When Darwin wrote of the evolutionary origins of species, Unitarians and Universalists were the first and most eager to explore the religious implications of this theory.  We accepted changing truth.  When schol­ars began to study the Bible as an his­torical and anthropo­logical document, and not just as scripture or holy writ, Unitarians and Universalists promoted such study. 

 

And today, many Unitarian Univer­salists are very anxious to understand the religious implica­tions of what is called the "new physics," that is, a new model of real­ity that is seen by some to overlap sci­ence with mysticism, and seems to replace the old mechanistic view of nature.  We are searching for new truth. 

            Science writer Lewis Thomas says that the common experience that motivates scientists to explore nature is the feeling of “bewilderment.”  He proposes this feeling as worthy of celebration, for being “bewildered” is a blessing for human progress.  UUs know what he means.  And a reasonable response to bewilderment is curiosity. 

            The psychological profile of a Unitarian Universalist is typically a person who is so curious as to welcome changing truth, and who sees such change as progress. 

However, there is also a negative and dangerous side to this character­istic.  Sometimes it is difficult for us to tell the difference between new truth and fads, and our eag­erness to accept new truth becomes lit­tle more than fadd­ism, fluttering like a butter­fly from one fashionable craze to the next. 

UUs tend to be close to their cul­ture, and when the culture discovers something new and exciting, you'll prob­ably find Unitarian Universalists standing in line to experiment with it.  Some­times, I con­fess, it is hard to tell the difference between new truth and fads, until the new ideas have passed the test of time.

So a third component of the UU psychological pro­file--why we are dif­ferent from others--is that we tend to be eager for new truth, and fully expect our beliefs to change as we dis­cover more and more about life and the world.  This expectation that our be­liefs will change is, I think, unusual, different, compared with most other reli­gions.  But the danger of this charac­teris­tic rears its ugly head among us:  we some­times seem overly eager to pro­claim any new untest­ed idea as a new revelation of Truth. 

 

            There are differences among human beings, and those differences should be honored and respected.  It is, I believe, because humans are different, that we have created different forms of being religious.  There are differences among people, and those differences are reflected in their religious expressions.  It is a simple formula, but one that is probably lost on the followers of Thwackumism, even those appointed to high office in Texas. 

 

Unitarian Universalists are different because, as Sara Campbell notes in an essay about the Unitarian tradition, we seek a balance between being tentative and being committed in our beliefs.  We admit to life's essential uncertainty, but we are committed to principles in spite of uncertainty.  "The key to maintaining a balance between tentativeness and commitment," says Campbell, "is pas­sion."

 

"Passion for life itself.  Passion for beauty.  Passion for justice. Passion for goodness.  Passion for truth that frees us."