“UNITARIANISM FOR TODAY”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
Whether or not you can teach an old dog new tricks, it is evident that an old Unitarian minister can be taught something new about his subject. In my twenty years as a Unitarian minister, I have countless times explained that our name, “Unitarian” came from a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. In its original meaning, a “Unitarian” was someone who believed in only one God, not three, and that Jesus, therefore, was not God. I’ve said that, or something like it, so many times, it has comes out of my mouth automatically, like a recording.
You can imagine how I felt when I recently stumbled across this comment (in the reading) from the great Unitarian minister of the 1950s, A. Powell Davies. Davies pointed out the word was first used by those who denied the divisiveness of creeds and affirmed universal religious freedom. The name derived from the root word “Unite” or “Unity.” Only later was it to be associated with those who rejected Trinitarian dogma, and came to be known as “Unitarian” for that reason.
Certainly
the Trinitarian debates were at one time heated points for the Unitarian
dissenters from orthodoxy. Such
arguments are long gone from our tradition.
It is not that Unitarians have changed their minds about the doctrine of
the Trinity, but few people care that much today about such doctrinal disputes. One hundred and fifty years ago, the pulpits
of
To the extent that the name “Unitarian” is attached to those debates today, the name may seem out of date or anachronistic. It would be difficult to find many Unitarians today who would invest much energy on the subject of the Trinity. To most of us, the controversy is either settled, or it is of little importance. Or both.
But the original meaning, identified by A. Powell Davies, is a different story. The original meaning that points us to a principle of unity of all things, is of great continuing value in human thought and action. The name “Unitarian,” I believe, points us to an idea that is timeless and relevant. The name encompasses something much broader than its relationship to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Unitarianism is an expression of a world-view that is at odds with some of the most commonly-held assumptions of Western religious and philosophical thought. The word “Unitarian” implies a presumption of wholeness, of a world understood to be an indivisible and interdependent unity.
It may not be obvious that this view conflicts with most thinking in Western history, but it isn’t difficult to show how that can be. Religion is probably the best example. Western religions begin with the assumption that the sacred is something separate from the secular. There is a divine realm, under God’s governance, and then there is the worldly secular realm, which we humans experience on earth. This dualism of sacred and secular is a fundamental premise in Western religion, whether Christian, Jewish, or Moslem.
According to this view, we humans cannot know God except through certain special rituals, such as prayer, sacraments, scripture, or creeds, which open the windows between the two separate worlds of the sacred and the secular. It is interesting how often this dualism becomes identified with actual physical objects. For example, the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, and the Koran are holy objects, and any act of physical desecration of those books would be felt as an attack against God. The elements of communion – the bread and wine – are qualitatively different from any other bread or wine for they have received a blessing that transforms them into something sacred. A church is considered “God’s house,” and nothing should be allowed in that building which might taint its divine nature with worldly activity.
It is not too extreme, I think, to say that in its traditional view, the Western world sees the purpose of religion as to help us escape from the profane world into which we are born, and find entrance into the divine world. In its ultimate form, this dualism says proposes that we live in the profane world and pass on to the other world when we die – this world is simply a stopping place on the way to the next one.
For me, the Unitarian tradition objects to this traditional dualism for many of the same reasons it objected to the doctrine of the Trinity. Just as God cannot be divided up into separate pieces and remain God, there is no obvious separation between the sacred and the secular. Whatever might be said about the sacred, it is experienced to be interwoven in this world. There is no boundary where the divine stops and our profane world begins.
If divinity represents goodness, we can discover goodness in the acts of charity and compassion displayed by humans the world over in response to a crises and suffering. If divinity represents truth, we can see truth reflected in the human passion for understanding through science and philosophy, through learning and discovery. If divinity embodies love, we know love by experience, seen through the eyes of parent and child, of spouse to spouse, of astounding acts of self-less goodwill and sacrifice for the sake of others. If the sacred expresses beauty and perfection, we live surrounded by beauty in the amazing spectacle of nature. Those who look forward to a camping trip in the woods, or those who long to spend a leisurely day at the beach, or take time to look up at the stars, or search for a rainbow whenever the sun and rain appear at the same time – all those who experience nature as nourishment to their soul have known something of the divine. A century and a half ago, the Unitarian Transcendentalists preached this message – that we can find in nature the spirit of the divine.
Most
importantly, we can discover the sacred in the human spirit itself. There are times when we can see a glow of
divinity within others, and feel it within ourselves. In the view of the great Unitarian founder
William Ellery Channing, there is a spark of divinity in each of us. Or in the words of Unitarian Ralph Waldo
Emerson, “The Highest dwells within us,”
which, of course, is an almost exact paraphrase of Jesus, that “the
The word “Unitarian” expresses, for me, this revolutionary insight that goes against the grain of tradition Western religious thought: that the dualism that separates the sacred from the secular is not just an illusion, it is a mistake that has, over the centuries, produced devastating problems in how humans relate to each other and to nature. Again Emerson provides a poetic summary of this view:
“As there is no screen or ceiling between our heads and the infinite heavens, so there is no bar or wall in the soul where we, the effect, cease, and God, the cause, begins.”
There is another way in which traditional Western ideas divide human experience. Common in Western thought is the notion that life is a battle between good and evil. Good and evil not only happen, they are forces active in the world, each seeking conquest over the other. In many scenarios, the forces of good are marshaled by God and the forces of evil by Satan.
Good and evil take on their embodiment in this world in individuals, or perhaps in the form of ideologies, or nations, or even races of people. It is this traditional thinking that leads some people to think of others in terms of an “Evil Empire” or certain nations as an “Axis of Evil.” In some forms, this dualism projects good or evil onto physical objects, such as a bible, or alcohol, or a flag, or an animal. But good and evil pervade the world, and it is up to us to choose one or the other.
A “Unitarian” perspective, it seems to me, is more inclined to deny and radical distinction where something is either purely good or purely evil. In our experience, by and large, there are far more shades of gray in ethics and action than there is some simple right and wrong. Sometimes our choices rest on good intentions, but we know we may have erred. Some choices feel like the lesser of evils. Moreover, objects such as bibles or alcohol or flags are not good or evil in themselves, but may be used for good or evil purposes.
The word “Unitarian” again expresses here, for me, a view toward wholeness. The moral qualities of the world cannot be separated so simply. Attempts to divide the world between forces of good and evil can be dangerous, for they presume our own infallibility in discerning the difference. Instead, a person whose view is wholistic rather than dualistic, is inclined to understand that good and evil rarely, if ever, present themselves without ambiguity, and it is the human task to discern in what way they are woven together in any situation.
The word “Unitarian,” of course, has as its root the idea of “one”: of unitary or unity. Though the word was originally attached to debate over the doctrine of the Trinity, and its division of the Godhead into three persons, the root idea of this worldview is wholistic: that life is an interwoven and interdependent experience, involving things spiritual and things physical, divine qualities and profane qualities, blendings of good and evil, right and wrong.
It may not seem obvious how this “wholistic” Unitarian view is related to the early debates about the Trinity. On the surface it would seem the point was over things like scriptural interpretation: for example, the fact that the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. Or perhaps the Unitarians realized the doctrine of the Trinity was constructed by church Councils, not by Jesus. Or maybe it was the simple fact that it was bad math.
In fact, though, we find that it is the deeper wholistic impulse of Unitarianism that guided their thinking.
In a sermon delivered in 1826, Channing defended the Unitarian view against attacks by Trinitarians. He used arguments of reason and scripture, but his point went beyond that and dipped into philosophical views that are profoundly relevant today. “Unitarianism,” he wrote, “accords with nature and the world around (us) and the world within us.”
With regard to the world around us, Channing spoke of the science and philosophy perceiving “a sublime and beautiful unity” in the universe. “Neither nature nor the soul bears one trace of three divine persons. Nature gives not a hint, not a glimpse, of a tri-personal author,” he argued.
This view is as contemporary as today’s science textbooks. One of the hottest topics in physics today is what is called a “unified filed theory.” It is puzzling to science that the subatomic matter appears to operate by different natural rules that the way large pieces of matter, say planets in space, operate. But science is firm in its faith that there exists a theory that explains both sets of rules – a unified field theory. Almost 200 years ago, Channing put it this way: “nature reveals a sublime and beautiful unity.”
Science assumes, and it has to assume, a unity in nature for nature to be understood. It is this confidence in unity that underlies the Unitarian suspicion of dualistic thought, such as distinctions between the sacred realm and the secular realm, or the forces of good and evil.
Another way in which traditional Western thought is at odds with a unitary view of life is when it thinks of human beings having two separate natures – spiritual and physical. Sometimes this is expressed in terms of “mind and body” dualism, and it continues to be a very popular view. Modern metaphysical religions, for example, teach that the physical world, which includes the body, is illusion, but only the mind is real.
Again, a Unitarian view refuses to make such arbitrary separation in human nature. Channing suggested that not is there an underlying unity in nature around us, but also that there is an underlying unity in nature “within us.” “The human soul has a unity,” he wrote, “. . . . One life pervades it, and its beauty, strength, and growth depend on nothing so much as on the harmony and joint action of all its principles.”
For
me, the word “soul” is a useful way of describing the unity in each person’s
nature. The human soul, it seems to me, is the metaphor for the whole
person.
Konrad Lorenz, is an Austrian Nobel prize winning evolutionary biologist
and ethologist, in many ways a typical example of a rational scientific
mind. In a book entitled The Waning of Humanness, offering a
biologist’s description of human nature, uses the word "soul" without
apology to identify the bundle of experiences, head and heart that make up who
we are. Is the soul a biological
entity? Of course not, he says. But is the soul natural? Yes.
Our identity, which includes both our rational capacity and our
emotions, is, recognizably and unmistakably, "anchored in human genes," Lorenz says.
Then he continues with this example:
"When I say, 'there sits my friend Hans,' I certainly mean by that
not just his physiologically explorable (body), nor just his subjective
experien(ces), but I do, instead, most certainly mean the unity of both, the whole that is both, the entirety of Hans. I further maintain that body and mind are identical."
Lorenz presents what might be
considered a Unitarian view of human nature:
the unity, rather than the separateness, of mind and body. Unitarianism for today encourages us toward a
vision of wholeness and interdependence, not just in nature, but in human
nature. One of my favorite writers of
the twentieth century was publisher Norman Cousins. In an essay expressing his beliefs, he said
it this way:
"The essential philosophical quest is for integration – which is to
say, the need to bring together rational philosophy, spiritual belief,
scientific knowledge, personal experience, and direct observation into an
organic whole."
Unitarianism arose from a deep devotion to a principle concerning the unity of all things. This principle is as relevant today as it was centuries ago when Unitarianism arose as a movement. Within our souls, we feel related, connected – a kindred part of the universe. The unity of existence means that what happens to others concerns us, and what happens to us concerns others. This is the religious vision of Unitarianism today: we are all one.
“We are all one” is a sentiment desperately needed in our world today. We are still in the post-Cold War era of restructuring the political map of the world, and as that drama continues to unfold, the imperative of our interdependence with everyone ought to be the primary standard for our actions. The principle that “we are all one” calls us toward a cooperative and respectful relationship with others who share this world. It identifies our desperate need for ecological respect. That our personal welfare is connected to the health of our global relationships and the health of the planet is a logical extension of the Unitarian principle of wholeness.
It was debate over the doctrine of the Trinity that gave rise to the Unitarianism as an organized movement. That debate may today strike us as archaic, but the principles that drove the movement – the deeper vision of the movement’s founders – continue to Unitarianism relevant. The deeper meaning of the name “Unitarian” – an aspiration to wholeness, toward unity, toward oneness – is as important as it has ever been.
Jabez T. Sunderland was a Unitarian minister at the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries. In an essay, he expressed his belief about Unitarianism identifying principles far more important than the simple dispute over Trinitarian doctrine, and he identified what he called “the larger meaning of Unitarianism.” Here is what he said:
“Unitarianism, to be true to its great name, must be the religion of the Eternal Unities. It cannot be less. . . . The study of religions (reveals) the fact that all religious faiths in their deeper meanings are one; social science (reveals that) all social interests are one; ethnology that humanity is one; biology that all life is strangely one; astronomy and kindred sciences that all worlds unite to make one orderly and harmonious universe. The mission of Unitarianism is nothing less than to be faithful to this rising truth. . . .”
READING by the Rev. A. Powell Davies
“Unitarianism: What is It?” In book Together We Advance, 1946
It is
interesting to remember that the first time the word “Unitarian” was used – so
far as is known – it was the name given to a number of religious bodies which
pledged themselves not to persecute one another. This was in the sixteenth century, in
And so it will be seen that from the beginning Unitarians wanted to end the troubles cause by creeds; and it will also be seen that some who had this wish were willing to abandon it rather than associate with disbelievers in the dogma of the Trinity. This was repeated many times in later history, in one way or another, and marks the most conspicuous historical division between Unitarians and Trinitarians. . . .
The Trinitarian basis of agreement is a creed; the Unitarian basis is agreement not to have one. Unity is more likely, says Unitarianism, in the absence of a creed than with one. For look at the divisions of Christendom! Moreover, where there is no creed it is easier to follow truth.