The Pageless Book

Photo Above by Brian Gautreau. Photo Below by Hojusaram. Final Photo by Gutter.

During the summer months and once per month during the rest of the year, my minister takes a break from the pulpit and allow members of our congregation, through the Lay Worship Committee, to conduct a service in her stead. Now, I’ve been a member of this church for all of nine or so months. For a scant three of those months, I’ve been a member of the Lay Worship Committee. Yesterday, I conducted my first service, in which I delivered my first sermon.

Of course, for someone who has aspirations of becoming a minister himself at some point in the future, this is all a logical progression of events. However, there is one thing that readers of this blog wouldn’t know about me unless they have met me in person - I am very much an introvert. Despite that I received a number of compliments from fellow church members that I looked in control and self confident at the pulpit, I was a nervous wreck by the end of the service. So I’d like to offer a sincere apology to everyone who approached me after the service - that blank look on my face was shock, and I really do appreciate your feedback. The impression I got from the congregation was that the service was a success. There were a few flub-ups on my behalf, but all-in-all, everything went smoothly.

For the reading please of my online spiritual family, and everyone in the UU blogosphere, I’d like to share my sermon, presented June 29th, 2008.

The Independence of Thought

What would life be like without any of those who dared to question the monolithic institutions of their day? Can anyone here tell me what they think life would be like without men and women who thought for themselves? Anyone? [Audience Participation] Well, I think it’s obvious from the answers everyone has given and your presence in a church with a history of great thinkers, that we all know a thing or two about rebellion against the status quo. However, there is one thing that wasn’t mentioned about a life without men and women who dare to think for themselves; noone would ever have to be offended. For all the good that questioning authority and challenging injustices does, it has this annoying tendency to offend.

I like to think of myself as a open minded individual, yet recently I found myself in the position to be the one offended by someone else’s idea of progress. Last week, a decision came down from the Supreme Court about the death penalty which I still have a hard time accepting. I won’t go into details about the ruling, except to say it is one of the more controversial rulings made in recent years, with good reason. Intellectually, I understand the rationality behind the ruling; emotionally, I’m disgusted. I could very well go with my emotional reaction - and that is so much easier than actually considering all sides of the argument. However, if I didn’t give all sides consideration, I could no longer honestly call myself open minded.

We should remind ourselves, from time to time, that thinking for yourself is in no way easy. The men and women who lived and died fighting the injustices, superstitions, and preconceptions of their day, were terrified every step of the way. Those who have chiseled their way through walls of oppression with their bare hands, did so not knowing whether their efforts had any effect. We each know in the back of our minds that the struggle is still far from over, yet it is so easy not to question, not to think, and allow ourselves to be led.

Emerson had said, in his essay on Intellect, “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please, — you can never have both. Between these, as a pendulum, man oscillates. He in whom the love of repose predominates will accept the first creed, the first philosophy, the first political party he meets, — most likely his father’s. He gets rest, commodity, and reputation; but he shuts the door of truth. He in whom the love of truth predominates will keep himself aloof from all moorings, and afloat. He will abstain from dogmatism, and recognize all the opposite negations, between which, as walls, his being is swung. He submits to the inconvenience of suspense and imperfect opinion, but he is a candidate for truth, as the other is not, and respects the highest law of his being.” I couldn’t agree with Emerson more.

Questions and Doubt. Curiosity and Rebellion. For many, these represent the very opposite of what it means to have faith. Yet, it is the seeds of doubt that flower into new sciences. It is the rebellion against the status-quo that brings greater justice and freedom to all people. It is our curiosity which makes the world seem to be filled with wonder, and it is our questions which refine our understanding of the truth. “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith,” as the theologian Paul Tillich had said.

The independence of thought from outside influences does not diminish faith in the Truth we find, but rather it redefines our relationship with our faith. Blind faith - faith outside the confines of reason, not subjected to the distilling qualities of doubt - is fickle. When someone speaks about losing faith, they are talking about no longer being able to find security in an untested ideal or idea. That feeling of security that blind faith instills can flit away at a moments notice and will only return when no longer questioned.

However, that is not the faith of this religion. We are encouraged to question and doubt, here. In this house, we are free to be curious, to rebel against antiquated traditions, to play hide-and-seek with God, and to think for ourselves. That faith is unshakeable. It is tested in the laboratories of our lives, and found good and true time and time again. And although our faith is diverse and sometimes at odds with fellow Unitarian Universalists, we use our differences only to further refine that which we find to be true.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Faith, Freedom, Questions, Reason, Thought

Photo Above by Hickory Hardscrabble. Photo Below by Jason Meredith.

“Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.”
- Albert Einstein, 1879-1955.

It is commonly accepted that morality is intrinsic to religion and spirituality. The first thing that most people think in regards to other religions is the list of rules and restrictions concerning conduct for members of that religion. While some of these rules are common sense, such as “thou shall not kill”, other rules, such as keeping the Sabbath or abstaining from pork, seem frivolous. These rules are theoretically the basis for the morality taught by any given religion. Is it just an assumption that leads us to associate religious mores with morality? Are we wrong to think that morality and spirituality are mutually inclusive?

I’m not so sure. My immediate reaction would be to say that morality is a construct of society, rather than the mandate of the Divine. I find the majority of the thou-shall-nots associated with religions are meaningless and, in some cases, detrimental. However, when I really think about the subject of morality in regards to religion, part of me cannot help but wonder if I might be over simplifying.

I think part of my indecision lies in the spiritual nature of simply doing the right thing. While rationally I know that my idea of right and wrong was formed by the example of my parents and, to a lesser extent, the stories and traditions of our society, the experience of the connection and appreciation of another human being is deeply spiritual to me. It is that appreciation, not the laws written in any given holy text, which drives me to do the right thing and strive to be a “good person.” I don’t even know how I would go about defining the term “good person” in an objective manner, making it hard for me to speak of morality in any useful way.

The most universal moral teaching that is found in almost every religion, “The Golden Rule,” may provide a clue as to the deeper relationship between religion and morality. The Golden Rule simply states that each person should treat others in the same manner they would want to be treated. In the simplicity of this universal teaching, we find the one thing that all moral teachings attempt to protect; every member of society. Morality is an attempt to keep society functioning and to protect every member of that society equally. Humanity is a social creature by nature, so it stands to reason that we would each be adapted to a social life and have inherent rewards for acting in a way that benefits society. One of these inherent rewards could very well be a feeling of spiritual connection.

Perhaps religion, a social construct and vehicle for spiritual experience, is associated with morality because morality is a social construct which can sometimes lead to spiritual experiences. This doesn’t mean that morality is the sole domain of religion, or that everyone who is religious is moral. It does explain how the two could become so entangled that we might believe that morality to be an exclusive function of religion, even though it isn’t. I am yet to completely make up my mind, however, as to the role that spirituality (as oppose to religion) plays in morality. I would like to hear other opinions regarding this subject. Please, if you have any comments about the ideas I’m presenting in this article, I’d like to hear from you.
Originally Published October 16, 2007

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Humanity, Morality, Questions, Reason, Spirituality

Above Photo by Joka2000. Photo Below by Alan Turkus. Final Photo by Joel Friesen.

Of Sandalphon, the second part of The Gated Emptiness, changes in tone and language from the rest of the text. The perspective shifts from third person to first person; little doubt is left as to whom is speaking. God speaks to us directly in these passages in a strangely humble demeanor.

I must remind the reader that this is filtered through my own consciousness. While I have perceived God speaking in a humble manner, it might be a result of my own discontent with the demanding God of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. This means nothing as to the true personality of God; it is my understanding that our concept of personality is meaningless when compared against true divine consciousness. The text reads:

I am confusion. I am confused as you are. I am you.

Now, these three statements pose a significant problem - God isn’t suppose to be confused. Isn’t the Divine suppose to have some plan? Theologically, this can be pretty disturbing. However, there is more here than what is on the surface. The word “confusion” comes from the Latin word “confundere” which means to pour together. In the word’s evolution, it has also passed through old French as meaning “to overthrow”, before coming to the English language as meaning “mental perplexity or disturbance”.

All three of these definition play a part in understanding the meaning of this text. First, we are told that God embodies confusion. We are confused as to the nature of God, as it is beyond our ability to comprehend. What does it mean, however, to say that God is the embodiment of overthrowing? This becomes more clear with the second statement; saying that God is “overthrown” implies that God changes. Like we do, God evolves and learns through alternating between confusion and realization.

Yet this leads us to another question - why does God need to evolve or learn? With the third and final statement in conjunction with our third definition, this answer is laid to bare; we are apart of God. Just as we are several things “poured together” into human form - muscles, organs, cells, proteins, and atoms - God is also the admixture of several things; the only difference is that God’s “things” encompasses all. The text continues:

You will not be rid of me. You might shred off the fat and skin of your body, skewer your flesh with your own bone and I will be in pain with you. If you should love yourself, I would love you.

Well, if God is inherent in all things, and all things in God, it makes sense that we could not get rid of God. When we suffer God would suffer, just as when we cut our finger, we feel the pain with our finger. Should we choose to love ourselves, God would love us in return as we are apart of God. Only when we become hateful does the Divine become hateful towards us, just as we would hate cells that turn cancerous within our own body. Yet God is not done speaking about his love for us; the text continues:

Innumerous are the ways in which I love you. I love you with death and I love you with life. I love you with pain and with ecstasy. I love you with the blue empty sky and the full brown earth. I shall not save you from my love; I made you to see, and you shall see it all.

Death and life, pain and pleasure, all that is above and all that is below - all of our individual experiences are manifestations of God’s love for us. Our purpose in life is to find meaning within those experiences, to learn, and to evolve. We cannot be asked to be spared heartache, pain, and suffering; we would be in affect asking to remain unchanged, uninspired, and ignorant. Worse yet, we would be asking God to remain unchanging, uninspired, and support us like some parents support basement dwelling men and women in their early twenties.

I suspect that some would disagree with what I have written here, considering that my interpretation of this text amounts to answers for long-held insurmountable questions. To think that a few sentences are enough to answer the question “what is the meaning of life” or “why does God make us suffer” would be foolish on my part. However, I dare to suggest that what I am getting at is a fairly good guide towards answers for those questions. Like a finger pointing to the moon, it is important not to misinterpret that which points to the truth for the truth.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Death, God, Holy Text, Life, Love, Questions

Above Photo by FreaksAnon. Photo below by Monkey123.

One of the major things that I strive to do with this website is offer a different point of view. Sometimes, that means pushing buttons and envelopes - a dangerous game of seeing how far down the rabbit hole you’re willing to follow me. Quite honestly, I’m surprised that I haven’t been admonished yet for going too far. Sure, readers have disagreed with me, but I don’t feel that any disagreements have resulted in a loss of respect. However, I also know that being controversial for the sake of controversy is an easy trap to fall into. Have I crossed that line this week?

My views are genuine, but that doesn’t mean a thing if I’m losing credibility with you, my audience. Sometimes I’m afraid that I am doing just that. I really care about the message I’m putting out there, and I don’t want my own words to get in the way of what needs to be said. Although I do this as a hobby, I also see it as a stepping stone that brings me closer to
my true goal of making this world a better place. Should I be myself, even if that means being viewed as an eccentric?

This is probably one of the more difficult aspects of trying to get people to think differently; you never know if they are actually thinking or if your words are just falling out of their ear, unheard. I wonder if other would-be ministers have ever felt this way. Of course this could all be part of the learning process - or perhaps an indication of the extent of my bovine manure collection. Either way, I shouldn’t beat myself up about it, should I?

It is all a part of the journey. Even if I wasn’t interested in becoming a minister, I would need to have these thoughts and these experiences. My development as a human being depends on making meaningful mistakes. Sometimes that means rubbing people the wrong way. I have this tendency to try to please everyone in my offline life; I need to get away from being so concerned about what other people think of me. Seth Pickens recently wrote about needing to be unmoved by criticism and praise as an important trait of ministry. I can’t agree with him more - I just need to apply that lesson more consistently.

I also need to hear back from you, my readers on a few things. I haven’t received enough responses to my short questionnaire. So far, only two people have taken the time to tell me a little about themselves. Don’t be shy - I really want to hear from you. If you don’t remember the questions I asked, they are:

• Which religion or spiritual path do you identify with?
• Which of my articles is your favorite and why?
• Which of my articles is your least favorite and why?
• What would you like to see more of or less of?
• Are you an RSS Subscriber?

Thank you for listening and Namaste.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Individuality, Ministry, Questions, Readers, Religion

Photo above by Ibrahim Iujaz. Image below by “bdesignbe”.

During my middle school years, I was active in my school choir. When I say I was active, I don’t mean that I was the snot-nosed kid that missed half of the events and nodded off to sleep in music class. Actually, I was somewhat of a star student; I was the only baritone. More than that, I was chosen from all of my classmates to represent our school in a regional choir competition. I bet you didn’t even know there was such an animal!

Now, I don’t want you to get the impression that I can actually sing. It took a lot of voice training and effort on my part to sing on key and in harmony. If you asked me to try to sing now, I’m sure I’d shatter glass and make dogs howl. I point this aspect of my past out because it is one of the major reasons why I hate Christmas music and show tunes and yet never seem to get them out of my head. Singing in the Rain? Yes, it stuck in my head right now. Silver Bells? God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen? Oh, Christmas time was our big season! The King and I? The moment I wrote the title of this post, I began compulsively singing…

Yet, this is still apart of who I am. I wouldn’t be who I am today if it wasn’t for the experiences I have had in my past. Every day I post a new article, I’m revealing apart of who I am, what I believe, and where I am going in life. I’m sharing some of the most intimate details of myself. I think a bit of turn-around is only fair.

One of your number nominated my blog for the UU Blog Awards. While this is an honor, I think it is more important that you are showing me that I am doing something right. I want to know what that is so I can do more of it! As such I’ve written a list of questions below that I’d like you to answer as honestly as you can in my comments. This is to help me understand you, my readers, so I can make this blog a more welcoming place for all of you. I especially want to hear from my RSS subscribers! Please answer the following:

• Which religion or spiritual path do you identify with?
• Which of my articles is your favorite and why?
• Which of my articles is your least favorite and why?
• What would you like to see more of or less of?
• Are you an RSS Subscriber?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Blogging, Individuality, Music, Questions, Readers

Photo above by Stefan. Photo below by Karen Eliot.

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

- Buddha Gautama Siddharta (563-483 B.C.)

Every spiritual teacher worth listening to has offered themselves up to be questioned. All of the great spiritual teachers have said to their followers, “Don’t take my word for it; go see for yourself.” Jesus suggested that we should know the truth by its results the same way we know a tree by its fruit. The Prophet Mohammad had said that “The search of knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim.” Yet, when we look at the organizations that promote the teachings of one particular teacher, we come against resistance to questioning. Why should it be that way?

When we surround ourselves only with those who agree with our ideas and beliefs, we start taking those ideas and beliefs for granted. Relying on these notions as being true, our faith becomes blind and misguided. Without regular challenge, a spiritual journey becomes a religious institution and stagnates like standing water. Religious institutions become resistant to external questioning because of lack constant of internal questioning.

Inconsistency in the texts of major religions are actually beneficial in that they challenge each individual to think beyond the text. However, the mechanism for unity is so strong in institutions, that these inconsistencies are overlooked, glossed over, or justified with poor reasoning. In contrast, when faced with someone else’s religion, members of these organizations cannot help seeing contradictions and flaws in reason. Truth be told, institutions train its members to see nothing but the problems inherent in other views while blinding them to the problems within their own.

This is probably the biggest hurtle that religious tolerance faces; the mentality that allows for questioning of other faiths, but not of one’s own. It is so much easier to question the beliefs of another person than to question your own. I always try to remember that, whether I am writing about my own faith or the beliefs of others. And yet that isn’t enough - we must each be willing to be questioned.

What I write here is controversial by its nature, but more importantly, by its design. I want to challenge and be challenged. I question your beliefs to spur you into questioning mine. If you learn nothing else from what is written here, learn to think for yourself and question authority. It is true that no one religion can be founded on that principle, but a community where every individual is a philosopher-prophet-priest demands it.

My question for you is whether or not Unitarian Universalism is that community. Do we follow Timothy Leary’s creed to think for ourselves and question authority? Can we say we live up to the Buddha’s denial of rumored wisdom? Are we taking a good long look at the fruit our trees bear? I ask this because there is a very strong current against mystic or divine experiences within our religion and I believe even this needs to be questioned.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Faith, Individuality, Questions, Reason, Religion, Religious Tolerance, Timothy Leary, Unitarian Universalism

Above photo by Area10. Photo below by Daniel Villar Onrubia. Final image by Image Editor.

Apologetics do not work. Occasionally, a man or woman might be convinced of God’s existence as a result of Christian apologetics, but this is the rare exception rather than the rule. Attempts to develop logical reasons to believe in God just don’t make sense; it’s like attempting to find logical reasons to believe in love. Without a logical reason to believe in God, we have to accept God as an abstract idea that is unique to the human experience. This doesn’t sit well with most theists and I can understand why - it plays all too well into the arguments of atheists.

One issue with apologetics is that it attempts to serve two purposes; first to soothe the minds of believers who have doubts, and second to debate the issue with atheists. Believers are often more poetic, metaphorical, and are usually flexible as to the exact definition of a particular word. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to be literal and demand exacting definitions of words. Take for instance the meaning of the word “faith.” For the atheist, this word means the unwavering belief in something in the absence of evidence, and therefore they feel that faith is in opposition to logic. A believer would argue, however, that faith doesn’t occur in the head but rather in the heart - that faith does not conflict with logic at all. Both meanings are viable, but attempting to adapt your argument to both definitions lead to messy and meandering debates.

The other problem of apologetics is the use of soft logic as opposed to hard logic. Soft logic, which is logic rooted in non-physical concepts, works best when speaking to an audience that accepts your understanding of these non-physical concepts. Love is such an example of a non-physical concept; I love my cat, and I love my wife, but I don’t love my cat in the same way that I love my wife (one hopes). There is no way to quantify love, or distill it into it’s purest form. Atheists want something measurable and testable - they want hard logic. Believers try not to meet atheism on that front and, quite honestly, when believers do try they often fail due to their loose grasp of the nature of scientific inquiry.

That isn’t to say there isn’t logical reasons to believe in God, however. Currently, there is only one scientific argument that I know of that could be made on the behalf of faith, but it involves accepting a few ideas with which most Christians feel uncomfortable. Neuroscience, which is the research into the human brain, shows that religious and spiritual experiences originate from a specific area of the brain nearly identically in each individual, regardless of faith. While some non-theists have harped upon this as being proof that spiritual experience is nothing more than a quirk of the brain, I would seriously have to argue against that view.

If this region of the brain is present in the majority of the human species, regardless of faith or non-faith, than it must have been the product of evolution. This leads us to the interesting question of what evolutionary purpose that particular function of our brain serves. The ability to have spiritual experiences needs to contribute to the success of the species if it is to be perpetuated through evolution. While a deity may not be the only explanation, it certainly seems that I am at a loss for any other logical reasons for this development. Should one be found, though, I seriously doubt that this would completely invalidate spirituality. It would be cast in a different light, to be sure, but I suspect it would also raise new and more interesting questions.

Regardless of whether science validates religious and spiritual experience or seemingly invalidates it, my faith need not falter. I experience God in the same manner that I experience love, faith, or happiness. No amount of scientific discovery can strip me of what it means to be human, so long as I remain true to myself. This is the ultimate logic behind faith in God; it is real because of my personal experience and personal meaning. It is apart of my heritage as a human being to have faith in and honor something greater than all of humanity.

For more information on the scientific inquire into spiritual experiences, see the following articles:

• Seeking God in the Brain — Efforts to Localize Higher Brain Functions
• The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet - Review
• Religion and the Brain: Can science explain experience?
• The Neuroscience of Consciousness
• Your Brain on Religion: Mystic visions or brain circuits at work?
• Tracing the Synapses of Our Spirituality

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, God, Humanity, Questions, Reason, Science, Spirituality

In my last entry, I wrote concerning the origins of Unitarian Universalism (UUism). I also noted that in 1961 C.E., the Unitarian and the Universalist churches combined to become the UUA. Now that the foundation has been laid, I want delve into answering the original question that I so artfully dodged last time.

The Union of Two Faiths

During the 1950’s, a great number of similarities between the Unitarianism and Universalism became apparent. The church leadership of both denominations began to investigate the possibility of merging into one denomination. I can’t claim to know exactly what was going through the minds of these leaders, but I’m sure that theology was one of the issues they discussed.

What happens when a single Christian organization adopts the stance that Jesus was not God incarnate and that all humanity will be admitted into Heaven? Questions are raised that break down the importance of being Christian over any other religion. If Jesus was a prophet of God, and not his literal son, all reasons to worship Jesus as God incarnate evaporates. When paired with the doctrine of universal salvation, the importance of being Christian over any other religion becomes trivial. What remains important is that each person conducts themselves in a moral manner and have a spiritual component to their life.

Concerning Non-Theists

The problem that this particular view of UUism is it doesn’t allow for non-theists. If this definition of UUism is to remain true to Christianity, we would still exclude agnostics, humanist, and atheists. Obviously, we do not exclude non-theists, as they make up a good 30 to 40 percent of our membership. So how do we theologically justify their inclusion into the fold?

Through the words of Jesus Christ, of course. When we choose to take the words of Jesus figuratively rather than literally, a lot of things change for Christianity. First of all, it makes a lot more sense, but more importantly we can see his insistence in our salvation through him as being through his example. A non-theist who is concerned for the welfare of her fellow human beings, refrains from harming others, and sincerely apologizes for her own bad decisions, is following Christ’s example. When we carefully consider Jesus’s words in light of UUism, we cannot in good conscious exclude these men and women from our organization.

Still Christian?

While UUism may have originated from protestant Christianity, I can understand why some Christians may view our faith as being outside of Christendom. If you define being Christian as believing Jesus to be the literal son of God and that we can only be saved through having faith in his divinity, than UUism is not a form of Christianity. However I believe that being a Christian simply means an honest attempt at being “Christ-like.”

I would even go so far as to suggest that perhaps UUism is more like the religion that Jesus envisioned than what our conservative brethren practice. Consider for a moment the origin of the doctrines of UUism; were they not both present during the founding of Christianity? It wouldn’t take much of a stretch to think these were Jesus’s original teachings. Will anyone besides fellow UUists accept this suggestion? Doubtful. I realize that in order to make this claim, I have taken a non-literal, non-inerrant view of scripture, which doesn’t sit well with most Christians.

So, What is UUism?

It is a liberal religious tradition firmly rooted in the origins of Christianity that has evolved to accept any moral person regardless of their actual beliefs, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or economic status. We worship, teach, and act with the purpose of making the world a better place for all people by following the example of Jesus Christ and other great moral leaders.

The Future of Unitarian Universalism

So where are we, as a denomination, going from here? Last year, the UUA started making a push to grow our numbers with an advertising campaign. Not everyone thinks this is a good idea. In addition to this, many UUists are questioning the importance or wording of our seven principles, which serves as our creed despite not being called such. I’ve heard many reports that our congregations are aging and I am witness to it within my own church. There is a lot to be done and much to be discussed.

For my part, I’ve been trying to drum-up more exposure for UU blogs, with the theory that more exposure online may lead to larger congregations in the future. Dan Harper recently started his own push for further conversation into incorporating emergent theology within UUism. While we may be small, the Unitarian Universalist Church is full of individuals who are willing to ask hard questions and move towards strengthening our voice and making a difference. I suspect that there are people who just don’t know about UUism - those who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” - that would find themselves at home in a UU congregation. With the right leadership, I have no doubt that we can reach those people.

Flaming Chalice Image From The UUCE Website. Cross Image (Heavily Modified) by Drew McKinney.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Christian, Faith, God, Humanity, Questions, Reason, Religion, Unitarian Universalism, UU Emergent

“God enters by a private door into every individual.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803 - 1882.

As I gradually have come to share my new found desire to enter ministry, I’ve found myself in the situation of trying to explain Unitarian Universalism. Friends and family want to know what Unitarian Universalists believe. When asked, I respond with an authoritative voice and a look of pride, then… admit that I have no bloody idea of how to explain it.

How do I explain to my mother that we occasionally sing hymns originally written and sung by The Beatles? Should I even mention that a large number of my fellow worshipers are agnostic or atheist? Would telling my friends that we use quotes from The New Testament, Buddhism, and English literature help them understand my faith, or just confuse them further? In an attempt to set myself straight as to the meaning of our faith, I thought it would be an excellent idea to write an article explaining the origins and evolution of Unitarian Universalist theology.

Unitarian Universalism (a.k.a. UUism) is actually the union of two different Christian denominations - Unitarianism and Universalism. As a result, in order to truly understand UUism you have to trace the history and understand the theology of both original denominations. Of course this makes any attempts to explain UUism that much harder, which is probably why the majority of us choose not to even try. …But I will try.

What is Unitarianism?

Unitarianism, first popularized by Arius in the early 4th century, is the belief that the Christian God is one entity as opposed to three distinct persons. While the Council of Nicea condemned this view in 325 C.E., it became so popular that it was dominant over the belief in the Trinity for a period of twenty years. In the 16th century, Unitarianism emerged again as a result of theologian Faustus Paulus Socinus and Doctor Michael Servetus. This was, of course, believed to be heresy, and resulted in the conviction and burning of Michael Servetus in 1553 C.E.

In removing the Trinity from Christian doctrine, the Catholic Church’s claim to absolute spiritual authority would be weakened. The implication of Unitarianism is that Jesus Christ was not God’s son in a literal sense, but accepts him as a prophet anointed by God. If Jesus was not the literal son of God, than what other sayings of Jesus were figurative? Most Christians would argue that the definition of Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God. Without that affirmation, the God of Abraham would be subject to new prophecy.

What is Universalism?

As with Unitarianism, Universalism has deep roots in the early history of Christianity. The belief that salvation is universal (hence “Universalism”) is first encountered in a number of early theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 200 C.E.), his student Origen (c. 185-250 C.E.), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-390 C.E.). This was, of course, eventually declared heretical in 534 C.E., but reemerged as a protestant religion in 18th century America.

If all people are assumed to be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, this would include those individuals who choose not to convert to the Christian religion. With the Kingdom of Heaven open to all of God’s creation, there isn’t much incentive to join the church. Additionally, Universalism could (and does) open Christianity to possibility of accepting the practices of other religions as valid. As with Unitarianism, this weakens the authority of the Catholic Church.

Avoiding The Question

In 1961 C.E. the Unitarian and Universalism churches combined to form the Unitarian Universalist Association. In combination of these two liberal Christian doctrines, I have to ponder the implications on the rest of its theology. Where do these two philosophies lead us when combined? Can UUism still claim to be Christian? What is the future of UUism?

In trying to define UUism, I’ve painted myself into a corner with questions. Don’t worry, I have a plan on answering these questions and more in the second part of this article. For now, however, I’m more then delighted to leave the initial question unanswered and allow you, my reader, a chance to mull over the possibilities for yourself.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Career, Christian, Faith, God, History, Ministry, Questions, Religion, Unitarian Universalism

Photo by Paal Leveraas

Can a person who has faith in a God claim that God has no free will? Well, I’d like to think that I have faith in a Divine Source and I certainly seem to be making that claim. As you may know that I enjoy making a shocking claim that seems contradictory or controversial and then supporting it with a well reasoned argument. Today is no different from any other, so if you please, follow me down the rabbit hole.

A common means to defining God is through three traits - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. That is to say that the Divine knows all things, is all powerful, and is everywhere. I like this means of defining the Divine; it’s quite neat and tidy, saying more without words then what is says with words. The problem that I am faced with in accepting this definition is that it raises several significant questions. If God is all knowing, then why are we not warned of the horrific events of our past history? Being that God is all powerful, why doesn’t he heal amputees? Are serial killers in the presence of God while they commit their crimes?

The traditional Christian response to these questions is that it’s apart of God’s plan. To a point, I can sympathize with this sentiment, but let’s be honest - that’s a fancy way of saying “I don’t know.” Traditional non-theist responses to these questions are that either God doesn’t exist (the option that non-theists prefer), or God doesn’t care and is therefore not worth our time. These are both very reasonable conclusions, yet my personal experiences, as well as the experiences of other spiritual people, tell me otherwise. So I’m left with no satisfactory answers to these questions…

… That is, until I start to consider the human relationship to ants. In comparison to an ant, a human being is all powerful, all knowing, and all present. If we so choose to do so, we might control every aspect of an ant’s life, to where he lived and what he ate, to how soon he died and how he died. This would take away every choice that the ant would make on its own; the ant would have no free will. The same could be said about our relationship to God. An all knowing, all powerful, and all present Divine Source would, upon making one choice on our behalf, take away the free will we have over our own lives.

Would it not be more accurate to say that God chooses not to act in the world, rather then claim that God doesn’t have free will? I’m sorry to say, no. There is more to this issue than the subject of God’s inaction, because even God’s inaction can be interpreted as taking a choice away from humanity. Some people in this world may very well want God to take total control of their lives - they would sacrifice free will for safety without regret. As sad as this may be, you cannot deny that it is true.

God has no free will because God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. To know all things, the knowledge cannot be subjected to judgement. In order for the Divine to be all powerful, all forces must originate from the Divine - even opposing forces. For the Divine to be present in all places, it cannot hold any desire to be in one place or another, to be one thing or many. The Divine Source would have to be like water…

Does any of this sound familiar? If you’ve read the Tao Te Ching, it should. You could even go so far as to say that my understanding of God is one and the same as the Tao. It wouldn’t be so far from the truth that I’d feel compelled to argue. At the same time, I still feel that there is one stone left unturned in this discussion of God and free will. You see, I honestly have a hard time even believing that there is such an animal as free will, nor do I believe that everything is predetermined. These are terms that we humans have created to describe what we perceive to be true, and may only exist as concepts. This may well be the ultimate reason why I can sincerely say that God has no free will; you can’t possess a quality that doesn’t actually exist, now can you?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Faith, God, Humanity, Questions, Reason