LIBERATING THE SELF, SAVING THE WORLD

A study on a Unitarian+Universalist identity in the global society

  

ICUU Theological Symposyum 2006, Koloszvár (Transylvania)

by Jaume de Marcos Andreu

B.A. in English/German Philology and Master in History of Religions

(Autonomous University of Barcelona-UAB)

Unitarian Universalist Religious Society of Spain

  

Unitarian Universalist congregations are often congregations of

people who didn’t fit in... To me this is where the UUA falls down,
and why you have CUUPS and the Buddhists and the Christians
and all these little subgroups —because we offer the hope of a
spiritual journey, and we offer no tools to do it with.

―Anonymous UU adult, from Engaging Our Theological Diversity

The liberalism that is dead is the liberalism that does not call for
decision, that does not see the divine spark in a person rises into
flame only through the recognition of the need for a change of
heart... Only when there is sincere recognition of incompleteness
and failure, only there are the spirit of liberalism and true religion
to be found.

―James Luther Adams

In the early 1990's, Postmodern thought was deeply penetrating the minds and
behavioral patterns of citizens in the Western world. The big ideological
metanarratives were falling to pieces, being increasingly unable to guarantee its own
credibility in the eyes of common people watching how walls and certainties fell to the
ground with no hope of recovering their former prestige and strength. And the
individual, now more attentive primarily to his/her fleeting needs and wishes, became
the king of a full-fledged, unabashed consumerist society. It was then that these
consumers, mostly baby-boomers in the US and in other developed countries, began
“shopping for a church.” That was also the title of a landmark article in Newsweek on
December 17, 1990, which featured the new trends in American religion where creed
became irrelevant in any effort to ensure the fidelity of believers, and other values,
such as openness, flexibility, convenience, or a plurality of spiritual options to choose
from, were the guidelines that moved consumers of the new spirituality from one
church to the next, always looking for the best, or more fitting, religious offer. In that
article, the Newsweek reporter labelled Unitarian Universalism “the quintessential
boomer church” because, according to the then President of the UUA, William Schulz,
its message was that “each individual is the ultimate source of authority.” The
journalist also remarked that people attending UU churches were looking for “help
rather than holiness, a circle of spiritual equals rather than an authoritative church or
guide” and “a group affirmation of the self.” This is particularly relevant for us since
the journalist seemed to have a clearer understanding about Unitarian Universalism
than many insiders, as we will see later.

Furthermore, there was a widespread feeling of optimism about the possibilities

that the Postmodern mindset opened up for the message of Unitarian Universalism.
The idea that a non-dogmatic, creedless spirituality fitted nicely with the mood of the
times generated high expectations among clergy and denominational leadership alike.
And every data available then seemed to forecast exponential growth as these trends
would become stronger in the following years.

However, fifteen years later, many of those expectations have failed to realize,
and there is a widespread feeling that the Unitarian Universalist faith is looking for its
own identity in the religious landscape. A new report produced by the Commission on
Appraisal, Engaging Our Theological Diversity, was finished after four years' work, and
it was officially presented at the 2005 General Assembly of the UUA. The first question
that this report was trying to give an answer to was “What Holds Us Together?”. 1
Meanwhile, the membership report at the same event showed a minimal growth rate
over several years. Certainly, not the most encouraging situation for a religious
denomination that was supposed to have captured the spirit of the times.

2
 Why is that? Why is there a perception of crisis, of lack of accomplishment, of lost
opportunity, to the point that a thorough self-examination seems to be necessary?
Why so much soul-searching, if Unitarian Universalism was supposed to be the
quintessential religion for the Postmodern era?

Perhaps the expectations were simply wrong. Perhaps Unitarian Universalism was
not, after all, as ready to embrace the Postmodern approach as it seemed to be.
Perhaps there is an explanation for some of the ills that seems to plague Unitarian
Universalism now, in the first decade of the 21st century: In the early 1990's,
Postmodernism was not the solution for Unitarian Universalism; it was the problem.

I believe that post-modern thought has hit UUism hard, possibly as hard as it has
hit other religions and secular political philosophies in the Western world. The
difference is that, while other churches were aware that Postmodernism was a threat
and a challenge for them, we didn't. Unlike other religions, we thought then that we
were participating in the solution. And therefore, while other churches designed ways
to address the implications of Postmodernism, we chose to ride the wave, and now we
are getting dangerously close to the rocks and risk being thrown to them because of
our carelessness and our lack of realistic assessment of the situation.

In what ways has Postmodernism seriously hit the UU mindset? The debate during

a good part of the 20th century should provide some hints: let's have a brief look at
the clash between Unitarian Christianity and Religious Humanism. Even though these
two theological positions seemed to be very different, they were actually closer than
their proponents were willing and able to admit. In fact, both were Modern streams of
thought, with their own metanarratives to justify their views about the church, about
the individual and its role in religion, and about the future. Unitarian Christianity was
a liberal religious approach that emphasized the humanity of Jesus, the benevolence
of God, and a hands-on application of religion for the improvement of man and
society. Meanwhile, Religious Humanism put its faith in reason and science, believed
in the capacity for moral perfection without a need for supernatural categories, and in
the slow but firm advance of mankind towards a better society and better human
beings who, unfettered by the superstitious thought of irrational religion, would finally

3
build a more advanced society, in which an intellectually enlightened, scientifically-
minded human being would be free of useless metaphysical speculation.

However, Postmodernism directly attacked the core of these ways of thinking.

Deconstruction showed that the Unitarian (and Universalist) aspiration to use religion
in order to improve the world by doing good deeds was actually hiding subtler forms
of repression; then, accusations about latent racism and sexism against the Unitarian
Universalists themselves started to be heard; likewise, Postmodern suspicion about
discourses on truth questioned the validity of rationality and the reliability of the
scientific quest to provide certainties. Meanwhile, the emergence of alternative
approaches to religion shattered the quiet waters of mainstream Protestantism where
Unitarians and, in a lesser degree due to their own particular decline, also
Universalists had rather comfortably remained for many decades. Being part of the
mainstream no longer meant to be socially validated; it could mean to be simply
obsolete.

A good example of the inadequacy of Unitarian and Universalist responses to the

challenges of a change in the religious paradigm in the West may be found in Kenneth
Patton’s Charles Street Meeting House in Boston. The idea was to generate a new kind
of Universalist religion, one that was no longer connected exclusively to Christianity,
and a humanist Unitarian minister was hired to do the job. It was like putting all the
ingredients of American liberal religion together to create a major cocktail; it could
only be either the best beverage in town or a real pain in the stomach.

Patton designed an altar with a picture of the galaxy of Andromeda surrounded by

bookstands with the scriptures of all major world religions, and gave sermons to a
Boston urban audience on a sort of universal religion based upon a sort of mystical
naturalism. Although the Meeting House experiment certainly provided some
interesting insights (it is said, for example, that the now common practice of lighting
a chalice at the beginning of a service was, if not started, at least consistently
practiced in that church), the fact is that it was a universal religion for the Boston
neighborhood. In the wider American religious world, in the interfaith arena, and
internationally, the Charles Street religion was simply unknown. People did not know
about it, and those who knew never cared, and the participants in the experiment did

4
not care to tell the world either. The church was closed shortly after the minister
chose another pulpit to go on with his preaching career.2

In the late 70s, Unitarian Universalism was in a crisis that was probably perceived
then as more threatening than the one that is being felt now. Membership numbers
were in sharp decline, the combination of liberal Christianity and Humanism was
failing to attract new people, and there was a rebellion under way among African
Americans and among women. The UUA found a way out of this difficult situation by
implementing and giving relevance to a new declaration of Principles and Purposes,
that captured the imagination of many people (particularly the metaphor of the
"interdependent Web", which became like a UU mantra in the late 80s and 90s) and
provided a basis, if not theological at least ethical, for developing materials for
sermons, books, and religious education. Apparently, the UUA had finally captured the
spirit of Postmodernism, although in the process it also embraced the values of
counter-culture, and left the religious mainstream.3 The inherent value of every
individual and a networking philosophy that applied to all levels of the UU religious
experience, from environmental concerns to covenantal association of equals in the
local level, were the key issues of the moment and still largely capture the
imagination of most Unitarian Universalists.

However, there was another list that went together with the P&Ps, and that was
the Six Sources. Originally they were Five (direct experience, the exemplary character
of men and women of wisdom, Jewish and Christian teachings, the world's religions,
and Humanist warnings), then a Sixth Source that recognized the earth-centered
traditions was added in 1995. Unlike the Principles, that were supposed to be taken as
a whole, as a set of ethical affirmations that were consistent and mutually supportive,
the Sources became a matter of choice. You could choose one source or another as
your favorite one and still feel that you were not betraying the spirit of Unitarian
Universalism. Those who identified with the Third Source could be UU Christians or
UUs for Jewish Awareness; those who felt close to the fifth were UU Humanists; and
those who had promoted the sixth were the UU Pagans. Other Sources encouraged
the growth of a UU Buddhist subset and also permitted many to be eclectic and
combine religions as they considered useful and convenient for their own spiritual
growth. The result of this trend to identify with one or more of the acknowledged

5
Sources made some people think that the UUA is now a sort of interfaith church, an
example of how people of different religious persuasions may worship and work
together. So, for example, in his recent study on Unitarian Universalism, Prof. Grigg
puts it this way:

... the more spiritual perspectives we encounter and in which we can

participate, the closer we approach genuine spiritual wholeness,
without ever perfectly reaching that state. Many-sidedness –in other
words pluralism-- points us in the general direction of the
consummation of the spiritual quest, consummation as an ever-
unattainable but eminently worthy goal.4

While religious pluralism is certainly, not just an aspiration, but a real fact in many
of our our Unitarian and Universalist communities, we have to be careful about the
semantic content that we give to the word. Grigg seems to imply in this and other
sections of his book that the UU quest is indeed a interfaith quest, as if a UU Christian
is a typical Christian, a UU Buddhist a typical Buddhist, and so on, and they are all
feeding spiritually each other with their diverse paths. Well, they aren't. We will go
back to this later. However, after affirming this ideal of a mutually supportive
pluralistic community, Grigg adds: “We are on a solitary journey together, a journey
toward sacrality”.5 And I can agree at least on that.

In response to the increasingly multifaith composition of UU congregations, and

partially in response to it, the report from the Commission on Appraisal calls for
renewed efforts to build theological common ground for today's Unitarian
Universalism.6 It asks for reconciliation with our religious past within the framework of
liberal Christianity, while at the same time it encourages us to embrace religious
diversity as an opportunity. Proposals are somewhat vague but they show possibilities
for further development.

The process of rethinking of UU identity through a denominational report on

appraisal runs parallel to a renewed interest in the larger UU world in what could be
called “attempts to reformulate a UU theology”. In the last few years, several works
on the subject have been published by Unitarian Universalist authors, such as To Re-
Enchant the World, a Philosophy of Unitarian Universalism, by Richard Grigg (already

quoted above); Faith Without Certainty, Liberal Theology in the 21st Century, by Paul
6
Rasor; or renewed interest for contemporary classics of liberal theology, such as Kim
Beach's Transforming Liberalism: the Theology of James Luther Adams. Even the
Unitarian Universalist Web is responding to this reawakening of theological studies,
e.g., when the much-read Chris Walton asked openly in his online blog, Philocrites, for
more individual and institutional donations to foster theological investigations on the
subject of Unitarian Universalism.7

We may also notice that the issue of identity in the wider Unitarian world is also
present. The Canadian Unitarian Council has started a process to rethink and
reformulate its set of Principles, as they feel that the current Statement, which is that
of the UUA, may fail to represent accurately the situation and needs of Unitarianism in
Canada. In Europe, the British Unitarians have partially overcome a centuries-old
suspicion on denominational self-definition and in 2001 they passed a revised Object
of the General Assembly that, after affirming the worth and dignity of all people and
the belief that “truth is best served where the mind and conscience are free”, it is
focused on “a free and inquiring religion through the worship of God and the
celebration of life; the service of humanity and respect for all creation; and the
upholding of the liberal Christian tradition.”8

On the other hand, the Hungarian-speaking churches seem to have no major

problems as far as identity is concerned, because it is solidly build around its more
than 400 years of history and a respect that is close to veneration for the memory of
its glorious founder, Ferenc Dávid. Nevertheless, we need to wonder if political and
sociological changes linked to the fall of communism and the entry of Hungary, and
probably later Romania, in the European Union, and the transformation of these
countries in advanced, post-industrial and post-agrarian consumerist societies, will
generate new tensions and challenges both in the distribution of membership and in
the theological discourse that up to now remains strictly Christian in its liberal
Protestant variety.

The hard fact is that many of us lack the ability to follow theological developments
in countries where the main language for writing theology is not English, and the
availability of texts in sermons or books online is also related to a widespread
hegemony of materials in English. And therefore a consequence of another trait of our
times, the information society, is that a discussion of how the Unitarian (or Unitarian
7
Universalist) faith is likely to develop needs necessarily to be based mainly upon data
from the English-speaking countries. It is my hope that events such as this series of
symposia, sponsored by the ICUU, or other similar events that may be organized by
other denominational bodies in the future, will help to enlarge our vision and cope
with more data and issues that now remain largely on the national or regional level.

As new societies join the international network of Unitarian and Universalist

churches, these upstart groups face the challenge of having to deal with the vast
diversity of theological positions that are upheld in different countries and even
among members in some of those countries. There is a temptation to present a
dilemma for newcomers to choose between Unitarian Christianity and Unitarian
Universalism, as if both concepts were somehow opposed or contradictory; as if you
had to look for guidance either to Boston or to Kolozsvár. Fortunately this position is
promoted by only a few individuals or tiny groups in Europe. But as anecdotal and
apparently irrelevant as this may seem for most Unitarians, it may just be another
symptom of widespread discomfort about how this faith defines itself and what is the
direction that it is going to take in the future. As new emerging groups are looking for
guidance and good models for their development and growth, whatever happens in
America will mean a lot not just for American UUs, but also for the larger Unitarian
and Universalist world.

Developing a model
As a contribution to this discussion on the joint tradition of Unitarianism and
Universalism as it is understood nowadays, and being concerned about its specific
identity and enduring relevance in the increasingly globalized society of the 21st
century, I would like to advance a possible model that, while respecting diversity and
individual freedom, it also aims at having a better defined theological core.

This proposal is based upon three pillars and expands on three concentric circles.
The three pillars should be able to support the weight of our sociological, spiritual,
and cultural plurality, and whatever we build upon them should be able to produce
effective responses in three expanding areas of reality and experience.

8
1st Pillar: A Person-Centered Approach
The first pillar deals with the object of our worship. Religions usually have one
category that justifies and gives meaning to their ritual activities and to their
teachings. Theistic religions focus upon a God concept, be it understood as a single
entity (as in the different monotheisms) or multiple (as in polytheistic, animistic, or
emanationist doctrines or traditions). Others, like Buddhism, focus upon a state of
being that is to be achieved through a method. Still others, like Taoism, concentrate
upon atuning oneself with the Transcendent Reality as it is perceived in the natural
world.

Unitarians and Universalists used to be monotheistic. The impact of Humanism in

mid-20th century changed that forever by questioning that monotheism. However,
Humanism was not specifically opposed to the theism that was practised in our
churches, at least in those of the Unitarian variety. Unitarianism, since the times of
the early antitrinitarians, had been increasingly reluctant to develop an ontotheology,
i.e., a study about what the nature of God is. Rejection of the trinitarian dogma was
followed by an awareness of the impotence of the human mind to discern how God
really was. To early Unitarians, it was clear that God is not a Trinity of divine persons
sharing the same substance, but it hesitated to proclaim how God really is beyond
that it is One, and One only. This affirmation of the Oneness of God was also an
implicit recognition that we cannot describe God. Therefore, God remained a mystery
that could only be understood through Jesus's teachings and, since Emerson and the
Transcendentalists, through direct experience and communion with nature. From that
point, affirming our lack of knowledge about supernatural things, agnosticism, and
increasing disregard for such metaphysical questions as impractical and probably
useless, was only a step away.

If we are to embrace our theological diversity, then any attempt at a common

theology cannot deal with the issue of God. Whatever our personal beliefs are, we
need to remain as practical agnostics in our investigation, and make our private
choices about the divine without trying to extend them to others.

9
 So, if God cannot be the central issue, what is? We could say that seeking an
answer to this question might be a good response. Unitarians like to see and describe
themselves as seekers, people who are in a search for truth and meaning. But, being
Truth ellusive in these Postmodern times, the search becomes as important or more
than the object of it. UUs also like the metaphor of the journey, the exploration of
seas and lands unknown, which are symbols for the spiritual domain.

However, concepts such as the Search or the Journey are not, in themselves, good
objects of worship. They refer rather to a process, an attitude of the seeker. They are
not even methods, step-by-step processes for spiritual enlightenment. They are
rather attitudes, ways of approaching a rather slippery, hard to grasp subject, such as
religion or spirituality.

So what does the seeker celebrate? Not God, unknown to us and subject to
philosophical, archetypical, and political criticism; not Reason, as it has been
questioned by the Postmodern distrust of Western logic; also not Humanity, we
cannot rely much anymore in our supposedly moral nature, as our enlightened
forebears liked to think, after Auschwitz and the Gulag; not even Nature, when recent
catastrophes such as the big tsunami and hurricane Katrina have shown that Gaia can
also be a cruel mother, just in case somebody had forgotten it.

So, what remains? If Truth is ellusive, or unreachable, or has multiple partial

manifestations like in the story of the blind men and the elephant; and if the gods
cannot be defined or even their very existence is questioned; and if there is no clear
method and no clear goal... the only element that stays, we would say in an almost
Cartesian mode, can only be the seeker that makes the journey and discerns the
meanings of his or her own existence. For the open-eyed seeker, nothing remains but
herself. We celebrate that we want to be and remain free. We celebrate that we seek
and, sometimes, we find; as Walt Whitman would have said, we celebrate ourselves.

It is no coincidence that the very first Principle of the UUA Statement is the
affirmation and promotion of the inherent worth and dignity of every person. The key
concept here for our purposes in “inherent”. Who has established that dignity is
inherent to the human condition? That every person is born with worth and dignity
cannot be proven. It is a belief, our most basic belief. It stems from our roots in the

10
Radical Reformation. Those radical Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, and Arminians,
opposed Calvinist anthropology of an intrinsically perverse and corrupted nature of
man, impotent to overcome his own depravity and in need to be saved by a gracious
God. But this positive view of human nature goes much farther than that, and it
becomes one of our signs of collective identity.

Unitarian Universalism today exists and develops its activity around the human
person. It may be classified as a variety of contemporary post-modern spirituality,
among other similar trends such as new developments within the Christian churches
such as Matthew Fox's Creation Spirituality, Unity and New Thought, even in
Evangelical megachurches that focus more on practical religion for everyday living
than in doctrines. And it is found also in alternative faith paths, such as the New Age,
Neopaganism, or some forms of Self-centered Neo-Buddhism that are practiced
mostly in the West. A faith that is based upon the individuals, their personal and
relational growth, their becoming whole.

I do not mean Humanism, which is a philosophy that, rather than centered upon
the individual, it refers to the nature and method of religion, based upon the rational
and scientific quest and a naturalistic epistemology, and therefore it developed a
strong metanarrative linked to the concepts of Science and Progress, and that, like all
metanarratives, is in crisis now. I rather mean a sort of Personalism, an approach that
is centered around the concept of person and which builds its meanings and expands
its possibilities around that centrality of the self. Since the “Personalism” label is
already taken by a Catholic philosophy of mid-20th century –although it is an approach
that certainly has connections with what we are saying here--, I will borrow from
psychology, specifically from the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers (who, with
Maslow, is another important reference for a theory of the realized self), and will
define today's Unitarian Universalism as a person-centered faith.

As we can see in the variety of beliefs and denominational forms that we have just
mentioned, this is not a unique development in the religious scenario, but rather a
major change in the evolution of how people live their spirituality in a Postmodern
framework. The body-mind continuum, personal experience, and personal fulfilment,
gain more importance in our choice of priorities for living our spirituality than, for
example, the study of metaphysics, respect for an age-old tradition and customs, or
11
obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. Scholars devoted to the study of new
developments in religion have thoroughly analysed this major change. Wuthnow and
Hervieu-Leger, for example, see the centrality of the Self as a characteristic feature of
religion today. Particularly Paul Heelas, in his seminal works on the New Age
movement and more recently on the decline of religion in favor of personal
spirituality, has provided many valuable insights on the very nature of today's
spirituality and the role of the realized Self. This is how he describes Self-spirituality:

... the initial task is to make contact with the spirituality which lies
within the person. There is thus general agreement that it is essential
to shift from our contaminated mode of being --what we are by virtue
of socialization-- to that realm which constitutes our authentic
nature.9

These studies find their correspondence in sociological data: a recent study10 by

the Barna Research Group found that no less than 21% of Americans consider
themselves holy, while up to 72% think that a person may actually become holy, a
concept that people interviewed defined as “being Christ-like” (19%) or “making faith
your top priority” (18%). The additional fact that the majority of those who were
interviewed had no clear idea of what “holy” actually means is another sign that the
concept is intuitive rather than guided by rationality or logic.

Nevertheless, we need now to clarify the concept of person within the UU

framework and make some distinctions. Here we are not talking about mere ego-
worship. It is not about worshipping our very existence as little gods on earth,
ignoring our many limitations, contradictions, and shortcomings. On the contrary, the
purpose of UUism, as it manifests nowadays, is to help us learn to overcome those
shortcomings to achieve a higher, broader, and hopefully more inclusive vision of life
in general and of our small existence in particular. The purpose of a majority of
sermons in the Unitarian and Universalist world would be, paraphrasing the purpose
of neurologist Oliver Sacks for his humanistic practice, as stated in his famous book,
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat: “To restore the human being at the center --
the suffering, afflicted, fighting human subject…”. To give meaning. To make sense of
the little and big things of human experience. To provide fresh hope. To yearn for
greater awareness and, perhaps, just perhaps, a glimpse of the Mysterium

12
Tremendum et Fascinans (R. Otto) that, beyond names and categories, surrounds us
and engulfs us. We are talking about the Self in connection with the Cosmos, our true
identity that, having inherent worth and dignity, and being capable of having that
higher vision, usually struggles to surface over the control of a convenient social ego
mask. Sermons and other spiritual practices become tools to help that higher, purer
self to emerge. Just a look at the titles of some of the sermons preached in UU
churches shows that this is a rather central concern. These are some examples taken
from the sermon schedule of the UU church of Berkeley:

● How will your light shine?

● Now I become myself

● The seekers of the Light are one

Other sermons, also from the same church, apply to more down-to-earth issues,
or in other words, the Self in relation to the World: “The Anatomy of Compassion”,
“Giving and Receiving”, “Living with Integrity”... We could easily find similar themes
in very many Unitarian churches, and not just in America, but also in other
geographical areas.

Being aware of the distance between our common reality and our ideal as realized
Selves is a sign of spiritual maturity and one of the features of Unitarian Universalism
that distinguishes it from plain naive New Ageism. We are able to celebrate the Self
and, at the same time, admit that we are quite far from liberating it from its egoical
constraints. Rev. Mary Katherine Morn from First UU Church in Nashville, Tennessee,
has a wonderful sermon on masks and the Mardi Gras festival. She says:

Evolution, growth, transformation, are possible because of

imperfection. What's more, I believe love is possible because of
imperfection. Where would we ever connect with one another if we
were perfect? Or even if we become so earnest about perfection. And
why would we connect, or love one another? Imperfection… is a
blessing. And still we fight it. We strive for perfection-admittedly we
must. Somehow, that is as basic to our being as our inability to
achieve it.11

13
 This inability to achieve, and yet the yearning to achieve, generates a dynamics of
spiritual growth in UU congregations that gives a characteristic flavor to the
movement. We are struggling to remove the ego mask and, at the same time, we
know that we are the mask as well. That in our daily existence, we are frog and prince
(or princess) at the same time.

Personal experience, subjective awareness, has thus become one of the main, if
not the central, criteria for personal spiritual growth in UU congregations,
overthrowing Reason from the throne where it sat for almost two centuries. As Heelas
points out, this is a key element in every spirituality centered upon the Self:

The basic idea... is that what lies within -experienced by way of

'intuition', 'alignment' or an 'inner voice'- serves to inform the
judgments, decisions and choices required for everyday life. The
'individual' serves as his or her own source of guidance.12

So, if we are concerned mainly with the Self and its struggle to surface against the
challenges of everyday life, thus being honest to our true nature and trying to
overcome our limitations, why is it that “Human worth” was one of the categories that
received the lowest score as the answer to the question about what is the central core
of the UU faith? Only 10% of respondents to the Commission on Appraisal's survey
answered that the First UU Principle was at the centre of their faith.13 This would
contradict our affirmation that a UU faith is a religion that celebrates the Self.
However, if we look at the category “Inner Harmony” in the survey, we find that 90%
of respondents said that this was very important, and 28% said that it was the core of
their spirituality.14 Whereas more classical categories in the Unitarian tradition, such
as “Truth” or, surprisingly enough, “Freedom”, only got modest rates of positive
responses.

Again, as Heelas points out15, this harmonial aspect of religion is another basic
component of Self-spirituality. We seek to combine our highest insights with our daily
life. Experience is a continuum, from the spiritual to the social to the educational to
the artistic. We are a whole just as the Universe is holistic as well.

One of the unfortunate consequences of this person-centered approach to

spirituality, based mainly upon personal experience and self-expression, is that it pays

14
little if any attention to tradition or historical identity, is a widespread disregard of
history. It is an everyday struggle in many of our churches to teach the basics of
Unitarianism and Universalism to the people who attend religious services, and
generally with little success. Postmodern spirituality sees religious forebears as either
boring, or talking about issues that no longer interest us, if not as just a bunch of
dead white men shown in black and white portraits and who wrote stuff that only a
few have the patience to read and even less the capacity or attention to understand.

However, if Unitarians and Universalists are to survive into the 22nd century as a
distinct spiritual path, vindication of our history, of our heroes and heroines who
sacrificed their well-being, their position, their comfort if they had any, and
sometimes even their lives to keep alive the flame of liberal religion, need to be
known, respected, admired, and read. I see this as a key element for building a
distinct identity and a strong personality for our religion.

On the other hand, other categories that are typical in spiritualities of self-
sacralization, such as healing from physical or psychosomatic disease, or prosperity
schemes, are rare if not alien to common practice in Unitarian and Universalist
churches today. If there is any attempt at healing, it is focused to the outside, to the
wider world, in the form of social justice and environmental concern.16 This is, again,
a major difference from other spiritualities and it is so important that we will devote
the last part of this presentation to this aspect of the UU faith.

Beyond the scope of this paper is a discussion on the varieties of Self that are
more present in UU churches and how they determine the kind of people they can
attract.17

2nd Pillar: Spiritual pluralism beyond religions

The plain fact is that any attempt at building a theological proposal for the
contemporary Unitarian+Universalist faith needs to deal with the internal religious
pluralism derived from creedlessness and individual freedom of belief, two distinctive
and fundamental issues in the U+U approach to religious experience and institutional
governance. There is diversity found both within the UUA, the CUC, the British GA and
other denominational national bodies, but there is also diversity if we look at the
15
global context: the approach of German Unitarians, Czech Unitarians or Khasi Hill
Unitarians is very specific to those traditions, and may be very different from the kind
of Unitarianism found in other countries, whether they are Christian-based or
pluralistically-based. So we find pluralism any way we look at the picture.

In order to deal with a theory and a theology of religious pluralism, we are

fortunate to have more and more theologians who are working on the issue. My
reference authors for this part of the model are theologians John Hick and Paul
Knitter, particularly the latter. They have done an amazing job in reconsidering
Christianity and, going beyond inclusive pluralism, as it was affirmed by Karl Rahner
and others until it became the official position of the Catholic Church, they have
moved towards a truly pluralistic theology of religions.18 Even though their reflection
stems mainly from a Christian milieu and deals with the challenges and opportunities
that the interfaith movement is posing to the Christian churches, I believe that this
model can be applied to the Unitarian Universalist case with some, but not excessive
customization.

However, even the theology of religious pluralism, as presented by Hick and

Knitter, has many limitations. First of all there is a discussion on whether there is
theological common ground to justify interfaith dialog. Radical religious pluralists,
such as Raimon Panikkar, question that religions are talking about a common Ultimate
which would only become different through the historical and cultural developments of
religious traditions. On the other hand, there are others who affirm that there is a
common Source, or a core of universal truths, that all religions share and where all
religious people can meet when they have shed away the limitations of their own
culturally-tainted approaches. This position is commonly called “perennialism”, and it
was proposed in modern times by philosophers of religion and the occult such as
Aldous Huxley and René Guénon.

We find both possibilities within contemporary Unitarian Universalist thought as

well. Forrest Church advanced the metaphor of a Cathedral of the World, 19 suggesting
that there is a single Light that shines through all religions even though these
religions, that he compares to the colored windows of cathedrals, modify and distort
that light with their particular colors and shapes. The radical pluralist position would
be defended, among others, by Davidson Loehr, who proposes a liberal church which
16
may be a refuge, or a meeting point, for liberal people of any religious persuasion,
without trying to find any common ground or shared source of their spiritual
inspiration.20

A discussion on whether Unitarianism today should take a perennialist or a radical

pluralist position in internal religious diversity lies beyond the scope of this paper, but
we think that it is an important issue that needs to be taken into account in order to
define our theological model for the future.

Where does Unitarian Universalist pluralism comes from? This is a consequence, in

the first place, of the religiously pluralistic nature of American, Canadian, British, and
other open societies in the West. Sociologically, this same pluralism is much harder to
find and develop in more closely knit traditional societies. But it is also the product of
a much cherished principle of Unitarianism and Universalism that has been upheld
historically: creedlessness, freedom of individual thought in our congregations.

This characteristic feature of historical Unitarianism and, up to a certain point, of

Universalism as well, was intended to preserve individual freedom and limit the
capacity of ecclesiastical institutions to establish compulsory doctrines. Although not
intended to generate an interfaith community, this is the logical outcome of the
evolution of this principle in an open, religiously pluralistic society. And it responds to
the Postmodern sensitivity. Scholars such as Hugh McLeod have defined our time as
an “era of religious fragmentation”. Fragmentation occurs both in society at large and
inside religious bodies, from the Catholic Church with its many lay movements and
base communities, and different theological currents, to Neopaganism and its
constantly multiplying forms and modalities and historical references; even formerly
tight organizations such as the Baha'i Faith have started a process of internal debate
and questioning of religious authority.

UUism could not be an exception, on the contrary, we would expect it to be the

epitome of this process. However, when the principle of diversity is applied with no
regard for denominational identity and historical awareness, it may become a Pandora
box for the uncritical acceptance of just about any religious alternative available.
Creedlessness is a facilitator for developing a diverse but still consistent range of
theological responses to religious questions. It is not about theological inanity.

17
Otherwise Uuism becomes an empty shell, with nothing to give to people who have
gone beyond the point of casual attendants, and nothing to be asked from them. A
parody of the Unitarians in the famous cartoon show, The Simpsons, illustrates this:

Lisa Simpson: This ice cream doesn't have any taste

Reverend Lovejoy: That's because it's unitarian flavored ice cream

Let this joke be an alarm bell for all of us. Freedom of belief cannot be an end. It
is only the beginning.

On the other hand, creedlessness should not result in a mere accumulation of

creeds. There are congregations that affirm being creedless because they have UU
Christians, UU Buddhists, UU Jews, UU Pagans, and UU Humanists in their midst. The
idea behind this affirmation is, the more creeds you can possibly make live together in
a single congregation, the more creedless that congregation is. Obviously, it is a
factual contradiction. More creeds do not make a church more creedless, they make it
more creed-dependent.

Of course, plurality responds as well to the influence of Postmodernism. The non-

viability of a theory of Everything and distrust of all-encompassing explanations lead
naturally to the fragmentation of discourse and partial apprehensions of truth. The
development of sub-groups within Unitarian Universalism according to different
religious traditions and sensitivities may be perceived under a positive light as an
enrichment and an opportunity to be exposed to a variety of spiritual alternatives. On
the other hand, it generates doubts about whether there is a center, a core set of
shared beliefs that provide a sense of unity and identity to individuals and
congregations.

The report by the Commission on Appraisal addresses some of the consequences

of the interfaith model for diversity in UU churches. The very reason that it is
generally argued to support diversity (namely, that it helps people learn about new
perspectives and contrast one's own beliefs with those of others to get a larger
picture) becomes actually an obstacle and is generally avoided in real-life UU
congregations:

With rare exceptions, conversations about beliefs and theology are

not regular features of our congregational life. Repeatedly, people
18
 have told us, “We don't talk about these sorts of things at my
church.” Everything we have observed suggests that we comissioners
are breaking a taboo that Unitarian Universalism took on
subconsciously at consolidation—the taboo against talking through the
need to merge theologies. This taboo seems to have been based on a
fear that if we start to talk about our beliefs, we may discover we are
totally incompatible with one another, and our congregations will fall
apart.21

Therefore, if the very reason argued in favor of the interfaith model is not really
practiced out of caution and avoidance of potential conflict, what reason remains,
other than individual freedom to think as one chooses?

A second argument against faith-based subgroupings refers to the kind of personal

exchange that one may reasonably expect in a UU setting regarding religious
diversity. Unlike interfaith gatherings, where people from different faiths come
together for some specific purpose or simply to foster dialog and mutual knowledge,
in a UU church you are most likely to meet people who identify with some religious
tradition and with Unitarian Universalism. It is legitimate to wonder if we are talking,
then, about true interreligious relationships. Is a UU Christian a good representative
of what Christians, or at least a majority of them, think and believe? Is a UU Buddhist
like a Buddhist we may find in Sri Lanka, China or Japan? It is more likely that a UU
that identifies herself with any of those religious persuasions is going to make a
suitable adaptation of that religion's beliefs to the values and principles of Unitarian
Universalism. Therefore, an encounter with a person from another religious tradition
in a UU congregation is not really an interfaith encounter, in which a meeting with the
other is both a risk and an opportunity; it is actually an encounter with someone that
we may like, because we both share the same principles and uphold similar social
values. It is probably a safer experience, but it can hardly be considered an authentic
interfaith experience.

Finally, if we are consistent with a model of religious faith that is person-centered,

then every element that is part of the process should be subsidiary or instrumental for
the core of the faith. Preserving faith sub-identities within the larger framework of
Unitarian Universalism may be understandable, even logical for those religions that,

19
like Christianity, still consider to be central to the Unitarian religious specificity.
However, we miss the mark if we turn away from a person-centered approach when
dealing with the issue of religious identities. The interfaith model is not a person-
centered model but a tradition-centered model; we discuss and our spiritual lives are
dependent upon the coexistence of diverse religious traditions. A person-centered
approach requires that religions become instrumental, they must become tools for the
development and realization of the Self, and not ends in themselves. Furthermore, a
person-centered approach allows for multiple religious identities. The Commission on
Appraisal noted in its report that a majority of Unitarian Universalists did not identify
with a single religious tradition, but rather with a combination of insights as they were
found in different religions.22 This religious eclecticism goes beyond traditional
religious identities and puts a theology of religions in a subordinate place in the
overall process of spiritual growth as it is experienced in a UU setting.

3rd Pillar: A soteriology of liberation

The third pillar of this scheme for a renewed U+U identity is about purpose. As
Paul Knitter pointed out in his evaluation on what could be common ground to foster
dialog and understanding between religions, and admitting that sharing a common
theological core of truths, or even a shared belief in an Ultimate Reality was arguable
to say the least, he suggested that a common soteriology, or theology of salvation,
could be more viable. He argued that all religions could share a common concern for
the poor and the nonpersons in the world. Besides Knitter, theologians from the
Spanish-speaking cultural area have been working lately in a redefinition of liberation
theology beyond Marxist dialectics and moving it closer to the alterglobalization
movements and towards greater appreciation of other world religions as valid paths
for liberation. A Spanish theologian, Juan José Tamayo, is one of the main leaders in
the renewal of liberation theology.23 He organized a symposium on the connection
between religious pluralism and liberation during the 2004 Parliament of World's
Religions in Barcelona and has recently published several books on this issue.

What does it mean that we speak about a soteriology of liberation? 24 The liberal
vocabulary of Unitarian and Universalist churches usually talks about social action
when referring to activism in fostering causes of social justice and freedom. Social

20
action, or social activism, does not imply as such any radical change in the structuring
of societies. It only aims at fixing situations that are considered unfair, wrong,
perhaps even oppresive, as in the civil rights movement. However, the social
structure that allows those situations to happen and reproduce, to some degree in the
developed world, and usually in a higher and more reppresive, violent, and terrible
degree in Third World countries, remains safe from radical criticism. The word
“liberation”, when applied to social justice, means not just fixing unjust situations but
a complete upheaval of the sinful social structures that foster the application and
reproduction of oppresive mechanisms of social and ecological exploitation.

There has been a prejudice, both among religious people involved in social action
in developed countries, and among proponents and followers of liberation theology,
that liberation is only to be applied in Third World countries, mainly in Latin America
and, to some extent, in Africa and Asia as well. However, as the process of
globalization widens and deepens, and as old political ideologies that were
predominant in the past now wane and disappear or are transformed by new
perspectives, there is a growing awareness that the fight in favor of the oppressed,
the victims, and the nonpersons is a global fight for justice and human dignity. The
gay man who is marginalized in his social and professional milieu, or the woman who
is denied her reproductive freedom by a political or religious establishment, are as
victimized and treated as nonpersons as a poor farmer in Guatemala or a child worker
in southeast Asia. Salvation through liberation is not for some but for everyone.

The potential in Unitarianism+Universalism for being a liberating faith is present in

our social activism that, as we already said, distinguishes us from most contemporary
Self-centered spiritualities. For a basic model of Unitarian potential as a force for
liberation, we have looked at places other than the UUA and North America, where
their record of social activism is well known. At the previous ICUU Theological
Symposyum that took place in Oxford, the deputy bishop of the Transylvanian
Unitarians, Dr. Rezi, outlined the following items as standpoints of their social justice
program:

1. A life-affirming orientation, that leads Transylvanian Unitarians to welcome new

knowledge and combat superstition and ignorance;

21
 2. Respect for human rights, human dignity and basic values, and struggle against
any kind of discrimination; and

3. Facing the environmental crisis, in order to learn to live in harmony with

nature.25

This scheme presents what we see as the three concentric circles for a
Unitarian+Universalist soteriology of liberation. The first circle is that of the person.
As we said before, this is in our daily practice the central concern for our liberating
faith. Personal liberation is aimed at fully realizing our potentialities as persons who
have the potential to love and be loved, to find happiness and give happiness, to fully
live our lives in freedom.

The second circle is social, and the personal circle is embedded in it. From a
liberating U+U perspective, the Self can only achieve true realization in a context of
mutual recognition and respect, in a society ruled by justice at all levels, where
people are valued for what they are and not for how much they can spend. From a
disjointed world, we aim at the vision to the Beloved Community, based on peace,
freedom, and justice. As former UUA President William Schulz wrote, “If Creation is all
of a piece, it is not enough to try to save ourselves... If we human beings are
holograms of Creation's whole, then our acts must intercede on behalf of all those
who suffer.”26

The third circle is global, and the other two circles are embedded in it. It is the
interdependent web of all existence. No society can be just if it exploits natural
resources, if it grows without control, if it needs to destroy in order to survive. Our
commitment to the preservation of the web of life in a sustainable world is the
culmination of our aspiration for a liberated person and a liberated society.

Finally, any soteriology needs an escathology as well. Unitarianism has not been
very good at developing an escathology, but Universalism provides some suggestive
insights. If both Science and Myth speak about a Primal Point, out of which all reality
in all its mind-boggling diversity came to life, and if our Universalist forebears talked
about that Source of Life as pure Love, we can only expect that all things will
ultimately return to that Source through love as well, because it is in the very nature
of things. To get closer to a vision of spiritual plenitude, to a time of Blessing, the way

22
is not destruction, but healing through love. That is why we need to keep struggling
for higher and deeper justice, for extending peace, for affirming freedom. We have
the task to heal our planet from the wounds of its past and the pains of the present,
and thus love is also its ultimate salvation, and therefore our salvation as well. It is a
long and hard proces, but if we keep present our highest goals when they move our
hands for justice, we will find meaning and ultimate purpose in our acts of
compassion.

CONCLUSION
In sum, I have described 3 pillars to sustain a renewed Unitarian+Universalist
identity in the religious landscape of the 21st century: a person-centered faith, a
spiritual pluralism that includes and goes beyond the plurality of religions, and a
soteriology of salvation that should encompass the levels of self, society, and the
interdependent web, all oriented toward an ultimate vision of plenitude.

If a paradigm shift moved Unitarianism from a strict rational Christianity to a new

awareness of direct experience of wonder not necessarily related to a theistic
reference, and if Universalism moved from the belief in universal salvation to an
appreciation of other religious worldviews, we are now quickly moving to a
redefinition of what this joint tradition will stand for in a globalized era. We may
withdraw to the safety of past theological ground, or we can become empty vessels
and let other religions define what we think and what we do. Or, we can also consider
new creative possibilities that are true to our present and loyal to our religious
heritage. How we respond to the challenge will largely determine if there is a future
for our religion in the 21st century. May forums of free discussion like this one help us
to explore new paths and deepen existing ones in order to move forward together. It
is now up to you, up to all of us in fact, to go on with the conversation. Thanks, and
God bless you all.

23
BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buehrens, John & Church, F. Forrester. Our Chosen Faith: An Introduction to
Unitarian Universalism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Grigg, Richard. To Reenchant the World: A Philosophy of Unitarian Universalism.

XLibris, 2004.

Heelas, Paul. The New Age Movement. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996.

Knitter, Paul F. “Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions”, in J. Hick and P. Knitter,

The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. 7th
Printing. New York: Orbis Books, 1998.

Loehr, Davidson. “Why Unitarian Universalism Is Dying”, in Journal of Liberal Religion,

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2005. Meadville-Lombard. Published online.
(http://www.meadville.edu/LL_JournalLR.htm)

Schulz, William. Finding Time & Other Delicacies. Boston: Skinner House, 1992.

Tamayo, Juan José. Fundamentalismos y diálogo entre religiones. Madrid: Editorial

Trotta, 2004.

UUA Commission on Appraisal. Engaging Our Theological Diversity. Boston: UUA,

2005.

Various Authors. A Global Conversation: Unitarian/Universalism at the Dawn of the

21st Century. Editors: Andrew M. Hill, Jill K. McAllister and Clifford M. Reed. Prague:
ICUU, 2002.

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beach, George K. Transforming Liberalism: The Theology of James Luther Adams.
Boston: Skinner House, 2005.

Cleary, Maryell. A Bold Experiment: The Charles Street Universalist Meeting House
Experiment. Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2002.

24
Lyon, David. Jesus in Disneyland: Religion in Postmodern Times. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2000, 2001.

Various Authors. Obstáculos a la espiritualidad en las sociedades europeas del siglo

XXI. Primer Encuentro en Can Bordoi 2004. Barcelona: CETR, 2005.

25
1 Engaging Our Theological Diversity (EOTD from now on), p. 1 ff.

2 For details on the whereabouts of the Charles Street Meeting House, see Maryell Cleary
(Ed.), A Bold Experiment: the Charles Street Universalist Meeting House, Meadville-
Lombard, 2002.

3 For a brief study on how Unitarians embraced counter-culture, see Oppenheimer, Knocking
on Heaven's Door, p. 29 ff.

4 Grigg, To Re-Enchant the World, p. 27.

5 Grigg, p. 56.

6 EOTD, pp. 140-42.

7 http://www.philocrites.com/archives/002426.html

8 http://www.unitarian.org.uk/about_ga.htm

9 Heelas, The New Age Movement, p. 2.

10 Source: Nathan Herpich, from the Religion News Service, quoted by Beliefnet.com.

11 Source: http://www.firstuunashville.org/news/sermons/2002mardigras.html

12 Heelas, op.cit., p. 23.

13 EOTD, p. 58.

14 EOTD, p. 59.

15 Heelas, p. 31.

16 This is thoroughly analyzed in the EOTD report, see chapter “Justice Making: How Shall We
Serve”, pp. 109-16.

17 For a discussion on the “expressive self” and other varieties of Self types, see David Lyon's
study on Postmodern spirituality, Jesus in Disneyland. Also Heelas, p. 160 ff.

18 See Hick and Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Toward a Pluralistic Theology of
Religions.

19 First outlined in Buehrens & Church, Our Chosen Faith, pp. 81-96.

20 Included in his essay, “Why Unitarian Universalism Is Dying”, first presented as a talk at
SUUSI, 21 July 2004; then published in the Journal of Liberal Religion, Volume 5, Number 1,
Spring 2005.

21 EOTD, p. 6.

22 EOTD, p. 71.

23 See Tamayo, Fundamentalismos y diálogo entre religiones.

24 Tamayo, op.cit., pp. 271-274.

25 Rezi, “Transylvanian Unitarian Theology at the Dawn of the New Century”, in A Global
Conversation, pp. 63-65.

26 Schulz, Finding Time & Other Delicacies, p. 54.