In a comment here a few days ago, Mrs. Blythe asked me what Unitarians believe. In a way, this is a challenging question because Unitarian-Universalism has no dogma or creed. There are some basic principles uniting members of the Unitarian-Universalist Association, but aside from those bedrock ideas, it is up to the individual Unitarian to come to her own conclusions about the meaning of her life based upon reason, conscience and faith.
As a general matter, I suppose it is fair to say that generally, or at least historically, Unitarians have believed the following (bearing in mind that I may be putting on my personal stamp on some of these ideas):
-- That Jesus was one of humanity's great moral leaders, but he was very much a human being rather than a divine being or the Son of God. Indeed, the fact that he was entirely human like the rest of us is one of the reasons his example is so important. (The term Unitarian refers to the fact that Unitarians historically believed in one indivisible God rather than a Trinity.)
-- Unitarians believe that a just and rational God would not condemn human beings to eternal hellfire. There is nothing an individual human being can do that is so wrong that it warrants torment for all eternity. Some have summarized these ideas as the notion that there is no damnation because humanity is too good, or on the other hand, that there is no damnation because God is too good. I personally prefer the latter emphasis.
-- Thus, Unitarians believe in virtue for its own sake. Virtue has inherent worth in and of itself, aside from any reward or punishment that may await us.
-- Unitarians tend to focus on justice here on earth, rather than looking forward to an afterlife. In reality, we cannot know what awaits us after death and, therefore, we should focus on living the most morally upright and productive lives we can here and now.
-- Unitarians stress the use of reason in arriving at insights regarding the nature and purpose of life. Unitarians believe in accepting the knowledge derived from science. Science is the friend of religion because it augments our understanding of the world.
-- Unitarians tend not to rely much on revelation as a means for arriving at truth. Because Unitarianism has its roots in Protestant Christianity, the Bible is often revered among Unitarians as a key source of wisdom. Unitarians, however, do not uncritically accept everything in the Bible. I think I am typical in that I like to cherry pick from the Bible, incorporating its positive aspects into my belief system, the aspects that make sense, and rejecting the negative aspects that don't make sense.
-- Despite the emphasis on rationalism in the Unitarian belief system, there is indeed room for faith as well. As Unitarian writer George Marshall and others have observed, everyone has some faith by which they live, some faith which motivates us to get up every morning and keep going. You may have faith in money, in love, in a political cause, or in a set of moral beliefs. The key is to identify where you are placing your faith, and if it is something that is perhaps transient or unworthwhile (like money), you should rethink your faith and replace it with something that has a more lasting meaning.
-- There are many paths to God. Although Unitarians are historically rooted in Protestant Christianity, Unitarians believe that one can arrive at important life truths through the study of a variety of other religions. Part of my Unitarian Sunday school training as a child was to learn about all the major world religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. A lot of great thinkers have arrived at the same conclusions as the Unitarians but from the perspective of other religious traditions. For example, at the end of the 19th century, it was discovered that there was a great deal of overlap between Unitarian Christians and unitarian Hindus. Today, many Unitarians may identify with a religious tradition other than Christianity. Thus, one could be a Unitarian Christian or a Unitarian Buddhist for example. I would identify myself as an agnostic Unitarian of Christian and Jewish heritage.
-- Historically, Unitarians have been heavily associated with a lot of liberal political causes in the U.S., particularly the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, feminism, pacificism, and gay rights. The Unitarian-Universalist Association has accepted women in the ministry and gay marriage with great enthusiasm. Sometimes the liberal political bent in many Unitarian congregations can be a bone of contention. Unitarians tend to be free thinkers by nature, and not every Unitarian embraces totally progressive values all the time. For example, my own parents ultimately stopped attending church because they embraced very liberal religious values on the one hand, but still tended towards many conservative ideas in the political sphere.
People who are used to creedal religions often express uneasiness with the notion that adherents to Unitarianism "can just decide for themselves what to believe." What I have just described often strikes observers as a recipe for chaos or self-indulgence.
In response to that, I would note first that as human beings we don't have any choice but "to decide for ourselves what to believe." None of us have any choice but to use our own brains to determine our belief system. If you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, you believe that only because your brain told you so. You either used your reason or your faith to come to the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God. No matter what religion you belong to, you cannot escape the fact that ultimately you as an individual -- a fallible individual -- are calling the shots in your own belief system. The Unitarian chooses to think critically about his belief system, which means not accepting any book, creed, or system wholesale. The key is "to decide what to believe" in a responsible, honest, and ethical way.
In addition, honesty and good faith are a key aspect of the Unitarian's search for truth and meaning. Thus, I cannot say, "I like the idea of enriching myself by conning money from the poor, and I am going to decide for myself that that's okay." If I stress both conscience and good faith in exercising my moral reasoning, I must conclude that conning the poor is wrong, no matter how appealing the idea may seem, because it harms other people.
I also believe that the Unitarian-Universalist Association's articulation of basic principles provides a basic framework for what a Unitarian is and what a Unitarian is not. I do not believe, for example, that a Unitarian could advocate slavery because slavery is at odds with the inherent dignity and worth of all people.
Finally, while Unitarianism may strike some observers as being "out there" (in the words of my own husband), it actually has a long and venerable history. Certainly, in the United States, Unitarianism has had a great deal of influence. It has been a long, long, long time since I studied Unitarian history but I seem to recall that Unitarians essentially dominated Harvard College during the nineteenth century as well as the abolitionist movement. Based on memory (and people who know otherwise can correct me) but I recall that famous people who were either Unitarian or strongly affiliated with the Unitarians included Louisa May Alcott, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sylvia Plath, Charles Darwin, Clara Barton and Florence Nightingale, Joseph Priestley, and Clarence Darrow. I am sure there are scores more as well, and certainly many have argued that the beliefs of John and Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, and Thomas Paine were essentially Unitarian beliefs.
If you are interested, you can learn more about Unitarian Universalism at the Unitarian Universalist Association website, the Wikipedia entry on Unitarianism, and all the terrific Unitarian blogs. My rather simplistic explanation only goes so far! Also, check out some Unitarian jokes here.
Great primer! Theologically, I'm an apathetic agnostic, but ethically, I'm down with most of the precepts laid out here.
Posted by: norbizness | May 16, 2006 at 10:58 AM
You forget to mention Universalism...it's the history of the two religions and the merger in '63 that really makes UUism what it is. The Universalist belief of "no hell" is kind of important in the priniciples than the theory of just one god.
Posted by: Bart | May 16, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Thank you Happy Feminist for providing such a thorough explanation of a little of the background and beliefs of Unitarians.
I do find it difficult when people suggest that there are many paths to God. If one can suggest that there are many paths to God then who is God? If one can question the very nature of God then surely by definition there is no God. Jesus said 'I am the way the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.' (paraphrase - too lazy to find Bible) I believe that there is only one way to God. I can only accept the truth of the Bible, because to reject some is to reject all. It is either truth or just someone's opinion, I cannot have faith in a philosophy I can only have faith in a truth. I realise that your view of faith is not true faith, but just a cognitive understanding. For me God is pure truth, Jesus is His Word made manifest and the only way to understand God and His Holy scriptures is to receive His Holy Spirit. God is not divisible, God is One, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus said 'the Father and I are one'.
To take belief simply as a 'brain decision' is shaky to say the least. What about a schizophrenic's view and beliefs when he/she is having an episode? What about the sociopath's truth? I have a BSc Honours Degree in Psychology and by-gum (to coin a Lancashireism) there are some disturbing reasons why people believe things and some clinical ones too. Only God is trustworthy only God is truth.
I am going to tentatively make a suggestion. If you really want to know God, honestly and truthfully ask God to reveal to you His truth. Listen with an open heart. Always search for His truth. If you lay your life open and honestly seek Him I know that He will answer - you will be amazed, overjoyed, humbled and will from that moment on never be able to understand how you could have possibly been a Unitarian in the first place.
I suggest this not with pompous holier than thou attitude - I am not perfect, I have not lived a perfect life (by any stretch of the imagination), but God accepted me warts and all. God loves US - not our sins but US. You will never know joy like it, promise! Hallelujah, praise the Name of Jesus!
Posted by: Mrs Blythe | May 16, 2006 at 11:48 AM
That was a very nice summary.
However, I think it's historically inaccurate to say, "Unitarians believe that a just and rational God would not condemn human beings to eternal hellfire." Unitarians believed that human beings are by nature morally perfectible, but they did not also believe that all souls are therefore necessarily headed for Heaven. Although Unitarians tended to be more concerned with self-improvement and social justice in the here and now than our potential fate in the hereafter, I don't think it was beyond the scope of Unitarian apprehension that a just God might indeed condemn those who did not diligently pursue their duty to cultivate excellence of character. Unitarians did not believe in "cheap grace".
A more accurate statement would be, "Universalists believe that a supremely loving God would not condemn human beings to eternal hellfire."
Posted by: fausto | May 16, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Point taken fausto and Bart -- I did not make any effort to distinguish Unitarianism and Universalism. It was actually the Universalist (no hell) side of things that got my family into Unitarianism back when my dad read Hosea Ballou in college. And yes, I forgot to mention the notion of Progress, the idea that over the course of human history, humanity will progressively achieve more and more justice and come closer and closer to understanding truth.
I very much appreciate your interest, Mrs. Blythe. You are correct that often the principles of Unitarianism mean that one does not know whether there is a God or what God's nature is. In my case, I try to focus on what I do know and I do my best from there. I have absolute faith that a just God (if that God exists) will not hold my honest lack of knowledge against me.
I should also point out that this point of view is not the same as holding that there is no truth or that truth is necessarily relative. Thus, someone who is deluded by mental illness may very well be mistaken as to the truth. Indeed, since we are all fallible, we are all at risk of being utterly mistaken. The Unitarian humbly accepts this possibility. I would submit, however, that this humility of understanding is key to arriving more closely at the truth. That is, if I constantly question myself as well as others, I am more inclined to discover myself in error than I would if I merely said, "This book or this creed have all the answers and I need look no further."
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | May 16, 2006 at 12:37 PM
I am fallible, but God isn't.
On another subject, I looked down your blog roll and was amused by 'Feminist Mormon Housewives', I think that would make a better show than Desperate Housewives. ;o)
God bless.
Posted by: Mrs Blythe | May 16, 2006 at 06:41 PM
Without meaning to start an argument here, I have to take issue with this:
I am fallible, but God isn't.
But you are the one who decided to believe that God exists and is infallible. You don't and can't know either one of these things; your fallible human brain decided to believe it. So ultimately, it seems to me that you're still trusting yourself.
Posted by: Lanoire | May 17, 2006 at 04:22 AM
No worries, no argument.
Take my computer, is it here or is it just in my brain?
Take God, is He there or is He just in my brain?
I believe He is there, and as He is God by very nature He is infallible.
(and to all you philosophers who are girding their brains for some philosophical repartee, I do believe the computer exists in the physical realm!lol)
Posted by: Mrs Blythe | May 17, 2006 at 08:07 AM
p.s. and when I mean 'believe' I mean the same sort of believe as 'I believe I am sat in front of this computer', 'I believe this computer is really here, just as I am'. I know God exists. Just like St Paul who spent years studying scriptures and being v clever (both in the Hellenistic world and the Hebrew world) but never really knowing who God is, suddenly had his blinding flash conversion - immediate change, immediate conviction. One can't explain God, but I tell you now with every fibre of my being that He exists. The only way to understand is to know God. Ask Him to show His truth to you and He will answer.
Posted by: Mrs Blythe | May 17, 2006 at 08:28 AM
Thanks HF for the explanation of UU-ism. And glad you are back from litigation craziness.
Posted by: j0lt | May 17, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Thank you very much for this summary! I am fairly unfamiliar with UU. I was just in a UU church for a folk concert last week and read some of the literature, and I appreciate your further explaination. When you have a chance, would you mind explaining the "agnostic Unitarian" bit? If a Unitarian believes there is a God, how can he or she be an agnostic? (Does agnostic mean, "unsure if there is a God but open to the idea of one"?)
Posted by: miller_schloss | May 17, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Well, I said historically Unitarians believed in God, but it's not necessarily a requirement. I would characterize myself as an agnostic with an atheistic bent. I tend not to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, but I also understand that I can't claim to know for sure.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | May 17, 2006 at 12:05 PM
Thanks for the summary. Now I understand why some internet survey I did produced this religious diagnosis for me, puzzling at the time since I've been a convinced atheist for many years. But although I don't agree with the "god" stuff, it seems to me the moral framework is excellent.
Although it is a bit like the atheistic strand of Hinduism (yes there is one, I promise - "god" is situated solely and entirely within yourself, and has no outside existence). Once you've gone that far, why bother to have a "religion" at all? Why not just call it a "moral framework to live by", or similar?
Posted by: Natalie Bennett | May 17, 2006 at 07:11 PM
Good attempt, Happy! I have to cringe when I hear the great religion of Universalism being reduced to just "God doesn't send people to hell," but I understand the limitations of your forum here. Just to say that I personally know 20 UUs without even thinking about it who believe that Jesus is A LOT more than just a great guy in sandals. The issue of Unitarian and Universalist christology is a lot richer than just the rejection of the Trinity, and UU Christianity is alive and thriving today.
Posted by: PeaceBang | May 17, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Natalie has a good question. If one doesn't believe in the idea of god, what is the benefit of practicing a religion and going to church? Why not just live within a "moral framework"? Is it the draw of community or something else? I have been wondering about that, so I'm really thankful that you're sharing details of Unitarianism with us.
Posted by: miller_schloss | May 18, 2006 at 10:50 AM
I think that UU-ism is a religion in the sense that it is focused on matters of "ultimate concern," (the phrase used by theologian Paul Tillich to define what religion is). How did I get here? What is my purpose in life? What are my obligations? What am I living for? Am I right? Am I wrong? Where does that highway go?
Why gather together in a church-like setting? I suppose Unitarians have just as much of a desire for a community of faith with like-minded people as anyone else. Church services generally include most of the same elements as a standard Protestant service, including a sermon and hymns, so many people get the things they enjoyed about church growing without having to believe in creeds that don't make sense to them. In addition, UU churches provide Sunday School training that helps children to start thinking about religion and faith and ethics.
I was brought up in this religion. I am guessing the many UUs who come from other religions have even better answers than I do.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | May 18, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Thank you Happy Feminst, for this. I just happened upon your space here and I'm quite delighted. I was blessed to grow up in a church quite similar to the one you describe. Although we do not call ourselves Unitarians, we also believe that God is too big for one religion.
To Mrs. Blythe, I would suggest that you consider whether you are worshipping God or the Bible? If it's the Bible you worship, you would do well to remember that it was written by men, who are, by their very nature, fallible.
Posted by: Beth in Michigan | May 19, 2006 at 09:00 PM
Thanks for the answer Happy. I guess there are a couple of reasons why it has never occurred to me to seek out people who think similarly to myself. First, I'm just not generally the "joining" sort, and I've thought out a philosophy for myself; I'm happy about it and don't feel any need to share it with others. Existential angst isn't my style.
Secondly, in Australia (and to a lesser extent Britain) joining a church is, in the circles I move in, a rather disreputable thing to do - either means you've been brainwashed by some sect-like preacher, or are doing it for cynical social reasons, such as getting your child into a church school.
Posted by: Natalie Bennett | May 20, 2006 at 04:49 PM
I think UUism is a statement that we can know the Spirit without knowing the details.
Thanks for your good description.
Posted by: Kim | May 20, 2006 at 06:36 PM
this is a great introduction to the uu faith.
i don't think uuism could ever be explained in one word.
Posted by: frog philosopher | June 22, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Hey, just found your blog. Wondering why you are a unitarian when many of your stances directly contradict the bible that you claim to base most of your teachings and doctrine on?
I'm not looking for an arguement, but more want to understand your reasoning and present to you why I don't agree.
My blog is www.truthisheavy.com
I happen to just post something on the unitarian church and liberal/legalistic religion and would love your feedback.
Posted by: David | June 28, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Hi David:
UUs don't claim that our beliefs are "based" on the Bible in the sense that you mean. The Bible is not our source of authority. Although we do respect the Bible as the source of our religious heritage, we feel quite free to reject or contradict the Bible. Our sources of authority are reason and conscience. We may look for guidance to moral teachers like Jesus or the Buddha (to give just two examples) or to sacred books like the Bible but none of these are an authority which we dare not contradict. UUs often accept some portions of the Bible and reject others.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | June 28, 2006 at 04:10 PM
This is such a good discussion. I would like to point out that it is impossible for Jesus to be a good moral teacher and nothing else. He made too many claims that would be outrageous if you or I made them. He claimed to be the Messiah the people were looking for (John 4:26). He claimed to be the only way to God (John 14:6 "I am the way...No man cometh unto the Father but by me"). He claimed to be God (John 8:41). He claimed to have proceeded forth from God (John 8:42). He promised to ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit upon His ascension into Heaven (John 14:26). He predicted His own death and resurrection (Matt.20:18,19, John 18:31-33). Either He was the only begotten Son of God, & the Savior of the world (as I believe), or He was the biggest fraud and liar in history. There is middle ground on many things, but there is no middle ground on this.
Posted by: Kathryn | October 17, 2006 at 01:43 AM
There can't be a middle ground? Why not? I have always believed that there are various possibilities-- (a) he may have been deluded; (b) he may have been speaking in first century Jewish apocalyptic terms that are inaccessible or misunderstood by us today; (c) he was a fraud; (d) he was speaking metaphorically; or (e) some of his words were not really his but rather attributed to him later on by his devoted followers.
None of these possibilities detracts from or adds to the message in, say, the Sermon on the Mount.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | October 17, 2006 at 05:51 AM
As I Said, Christ made too many claims that either identify Him as a fraud, a liar, or, I might add, a lunatic; or else He is who He says He is. As I've said before, we would love for everyone to join us at Christians For Biblical Equality at cbeinternational.org, for great discussion blogs and published materials on Biblical Equality for women and men.
Posted by: Kathryn | October 17, 2006 at 04:28 PM