You have no doubt figured out that the combination of letters and numbers
in my sermon title comes from a vanity license plate or bumper sticker; soon
after I submitted this as my title I learned that a nearby congregation is
selling bumper stickers which read “IMAUURU?” One of my clergy colleagues has a
license plate that says “UU Rev.” All are expressions of “UU Identity” and seem
mysterious to the uninitiated; it is we who know the code! But, what does it
mean to be a “uu?” Who are we?
“Unitarian Universalism is a peculiar religious tradition,” writes David
Bumbaugh in his “narrative history” of our faith, “in that what binds it is not
so much a shared theology, or even a shared response to the experience of the
sacred, as it is a shared history.”
We need to know something of that history, even to understand the meaning
of our name, but it won’t all fit into the “25 words or less” we need to give
those who don’t yet know the code a meaningful (if brief)
description.
“Unitarian” was originally a derogatory term used to describe those
churches and ministers who believed that God was one and did not/could not
accept the divinity of Jesus as part of the godhead. The Universalists got their name from
the doctrine of universal salvation, believing that “all were saved in Christ”
not just the few elect. Now both of these are vast oversimplifications. As
neither body had a creedal test, there were as many beliefs as there were
members. And there was a lot of
overlap—many Unitarians had a universalist theology and many Universalists were
unitarian, too. (Or at least anti-trinitarian in belief.) One minister who
served both Unitarian and Universalist churches (I think it was Thomas Starr
King) explained the difference this way: “The Universalists think God is too
good to damn man, and the Unitarians think man is too good to be
damned.”
When I became a Unitarian in 1958, the American Unitarian Association was
made up of churches in the liberal Christian tradition and fellowships (smaller
groups that aspired to become churches or who weren’t sure exactly what they
wanted to be). The Universalist
General Convention (of which I knew nothing) had recently become the
Universalist Church of America. Early in that decade it had been rejected for
membership in the Federal Council of Churches (later the National Council of
Churches) because it required no creedal test for Christianity of its members.
That turned the tide in an on-and-off courtship between the two that had gone on
for well over a century. In 1961 the two liberal Christian groups consolidated.
Then something happened. We didn’t seem to know who we were anymore
(certainly many did not consider themselves to be Christian, even before the
consolidation). We became a
religious body in search of an identity. It is a developmental task for
individuals, maybe for institutions, too.
Who are we? and what do we believe?
There is no creedal test; we are in fact a faith without
a creed. You will have noticed some
talk, however, about “the principles…” These are principles adopted as a bylaw
of the Unitarian Universalist Association by vote at two annual General
Assemblies, in 1984 and 1985. The actual wording begins “We, the member
congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and
promote…” and then goes on to state the seven principles. I will talk a bit later about how they
came into being, but first, these words from a little pamphlet by Julie Parker
Amory:
Unitarian Universalism is a faith without a creed. This means that
Unitarian Universalists are encouraged to question and explore
what is not known to them—such as what God is, or what
happens after we die. The answers are not dictated. However,
Unitarian Universalist beliefs are consistent with seven principles
that Unitarian Universalist congregations have agreed to affirm.
These principles are printed (in very fine print) on
your order of service each week. They may be found also in the front of
Singing the Living Tradition, between the Preface and page one.
Back to Amory’s pamphlet (which I expect to have a copy of for each
family before long):
While Unitarian Universalists have their individual beliefs about
a
number of things, including God, the Bible, Jesus, the earth,
death,
prayer, and ritual, they are united in their beliefs that all people
are
inherently worthy, that we should work for a peaceful, just world,
that
we should continue to question and search for the truth, and that we
cherish the earth and all its inhabitants.
That’s a pretty succinct way to describe us. Note that it took from 1961
to 1985 to formulate that statement. It is not that we had no principles for
those first 24 years of our existence; we even had stated principles. It’s just
that they weren’t working for lots of people.
Warren Ross tells the story in his book The Premise and the
Promise:
Women were the catalysts.
Much of the credit for initiating the long and
meandering path that led to the final agreement must go to the women in our
movement. For some years, women (although not women alone) had grown unhappy
with the blatantly sexist language of the original Principles, and during the
1970s repeated ‘man hunts’ [His words!] were staged to remove the most offensive
terminology from the bylaws.
Excised, for instance, were the consistent references to the moderator
and president, indeed to all officers and ministers, as ‘he.’ Even so, mentions of ‘brotherhood’ and
‘mankind’ survived well into the 1980s.
Some of the women involved in the Women and Religion
movement
and the effort to revise the Principles take exception
to his fuller description of the process, and he does give more credit to the
Women’s Federation and less to the grassroots leaders than should be given. In
any case, the Women and Religion Resolution of 1977 (put forward by folks from
the Joseph Priestley District and from Lexington, Mass., almost all lay people)
led to the presentation in 1981 of a “de-sexed and non-theistic” [Ross] revision
of the Principles and Purposes, which satisfied almost no
one.
The result was the beginning of a truly participatory process, with the
presentation of hundreds of versions
which were discussed, adapted and discussed some more, in our
congregations, at various meetings, and at the General Assemblies. I recall the
many sessions we had at the Unitarian Church of Rockville, which I was then
serving, and I recall sitting on the grass at New Brunswick, Maine, for such a
discussion. When the vote was taken at the General Assembly in Cleveland in
1984, there was a chorus of “ayes” and a few scattered “noes.” The final vote
the next year recorded one “no.” (We always vote twice, in case we have changed
our minds.)
The new wording of the sources of our tradition were adopted at the same time, but those
have been changed already (to include Earth-centered traditions). The Principles, however, have proved to
be a reasonably satisfactory statement of affirmations we
share.
We are believed to be the first religious body to include wording such as
that in our 7th Principle: “the interdependent web of all existence,
of which we are a part.” This Principle is, I believe, an important counter
weight or balance to the 1st: “the inherent worth and dignity of
every person.” We have a long tradition (at least on our Unitarian side!) of
focusing on the individual at the expense of the community. It helps to give us a more appropriate
place in the universe!
Frances Manly, in a paper she wrote while a student at Meadville/ Lombard
Theological School, goes even further, suggesting that if one views the
Principles structurally the structure represents a pyramid, with the first and
seventh as the base and the second and sixth, and the third and the fifth paired
up along the sides. Now, I am not one of those people who know which principle
goes with which number, so I always have to look them up. Thus, we see that our
affirmation of “justice, dignity, and compassion in human relations” goes with
“the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all” and that
“acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our
congregations” is the opposite number to “the right of conscience and the use of
the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.” This leaves one principle to stand alone
at the top of the pyramid, and that is the fourth, which affirms and promotes “a
free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”
This principle affirms what many Unitarians used to say
we believed, anyway! I find Manly’s approach an interesting way to look at them,
without feeling I have to get anyone else to look at them that
way.
In our classes for children (and our older group, when
it begins) we are focusing this year on aspects of Unitarian Universalist
identity and belief. This emphasis for our youngest children will be seen
primarily in the way we are together, and with them, and how we celebrate
holidays and other special days.
The program we are using for older children (six and up) is one this
congregation has used before: We Believe, developed for the Church of the
Larger Fellowship and intended to be used in mixed age groups. This makes it work well for us! It
addresses each of the principles in a variety of ways—through songs, stories,
and activities. It provides inspiration as well for intergenerational services
we will have throughout the year.
The group that Glenda Parsons will lead (primarily junior high but some
older teens, we hope) examines Messages in Music, exploring ways in which
the UU Principles and Purposes are expressed and violated in our society. Using contemporary music as a focus,
young people learn to incorporate and express UU values in their
lives.
Our theme and emphasis varies from year to year. Last year our program
focused on Biblical material and stories, the year before that on world
religions. Our program is one of
“religious education,” rather than of “denominational education.” With our focus this year on the
principles, values, beliefs, stories, and people of our faith, we are engaging
in one aspect of a broader program.
Rather than trying to impose our own beliefs on the young, however, we
encourage them to explore their own and to develop them as they go
along.
In 1837, our religious forbear William Ellery Channing said, “The great
end in religious instruction is not to stamp our minds upon the young, but to
stir up their own; not to make them see with our eyes, but to look inquiringly
and steadily with their own; not to give them a definite amount of knowledge,
but to inspire a fervent love of truth; not to form an outward regularity, but
to touch inward springs.” What a remarkable philosophy of teaching the young—in
our time, or any other. And he said
this in 1837.
We are engaged in the work of spiritual formation, helping our youngsters
to understand what others of our faith have found good and worthy as they work
on their on free and responsible search for truth and meaning. I believe that we are in the business of
nurturing and teaching UU children, not nurturing and teaching children to be
“UU” when they grow up. (No matter how fervently we may hope they are!) Many, if
not most, of us found this faith on our own. We can decide what we think it important
to tell them of our minds and hearts, but can’t “stamp our minds upon”
theirs. That isn’t who we
are.
May it be our goal “not to impose religion upon them in form of arbitrary
rules, but to awaken the conscience, the moral discernment.” May all that we are and do with and for
our children, and with one another, “awaken the soul” and “excite and cherish
spiritual life.”
So be it.
Books referred to:
David E. Bumbaugh. Unitarian Universalism. A narrative history. Meadville/Lombard Press 2000.
Warren R. Ross. The Premise and the Promise. The Story of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Skinner House Books 2001.
The pamphlet is:
Julia Parker Amory: Faith Without a Creed. Asking Questions as a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarian Universalist Association 1996.
All are available from the Unitarian Universalist Association Bookstore at www.uua.org/bookstore,
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108,
or 617-742-2100.