Skip to main content

Do we welcome atheists?

Posts by a couple of my colleagues have got me thinking. Here Andy posts about the slogan of his church in London: "A church for atheists... and everyone else." And here Danny says "There is no such thing as atheism."

How interesting. So do Unitarian churches welcome atheists? To me this is not the significant question. I don't know of any church that would say it wouldn't welcome atheists. If I asked my Anglican neighbours "do you welcome atheists?" they would say, "Of course we do, but we welcome them to enter into a relationship with God."

So the question is not "who do you welcome?" but rather "what do you welcome people into?" The invitation goes out to all, but what is it an invitation to? This is the pressing question to Unitarianism. In many Unitarian circles there's a lot of talk about welcoming all people: people of different beliefs, different sexual orientations, different races, but what are we welcoming them into? What are we welcoming them to do?

Unitarianism is creedless. So the invitation is not to a particular set of stated beliefs. Then what? The response sometimes is something like "a loving, justice-seeking community." Which sounds great, but I don't think it is enough.

Speaking personally it's not enough for me. If I weren't a person of faith I would say to you. "I have enough friends, I have family and people in my life who love me. I already belong to communities that make the world a better place. I give to Amnesty International, I belong to a political party that reflects my values, I have no need for love, community or justice from church. It's great that you guys are into that stuff, but it's not going to make me get up on Sunday morning."

We cannot simply put ethics at the centre of a church and think that is enough. Or rather you can, but that is called Ethical Culture. By all means start an Ethical Culture Society, good luck to you, but it's not going to be an organisation I'll be investing myself in. And it's not Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a creedless religion. But it is a religion. And religion is more than ethics.

Religion invites people to go deeper. And here words begin to fail us, because all religions agree that there is something ultimately indescribable that we're wrestling with here. But we can say that religion invites us to encounter a deeper Reality. This Reality, some religions claim, is actually more real than what we encounter in everyday life, even though in many ways it seems considerably less real. It cannot be described in scientific ways. But it can be directly apprehended by people. But it can only be apprehended using parts of the self that are very undeveloped in most of us; Anthony de Mello calls those parts of the self "the mystical heart."

Beliefs are "scaffolding" that help many people reach this Reality. But oftentimes people mistake the scaffolding for the Reality itself. Many religious people worship the scaffolding, forgetting that it is only ever a means to an end. This is called idolatry.

Unitarians are often people who have found a particular set of beliefs/scaffolding unhelpful in reaching the Reality. In fact in climbing the scaffolding it has collapsed in on them, bruising them badly in the process.

Unitarianism says, "Use whatever scaffolding you want, make your own, or buy someone else's in. Or maybe you are a rare soul who needs no scaffolding at all and you can fly like a bird directly into the Reality. But whatever you do, never mistake the scaffolding for the Reality."

Unitarianism must remain true to it's prophetic role in challenging idolatries. We often idolise scaffolding, we even build scaffolding that goes in the entirely wrong direction. This is what Danny means when he talks about worshipping finite things that actually do more harm than good. Some "gods" are scaffolding that take us towards the Reality and some "gods" take us in the wrong direction entirely.

But we must always affirm that our purpose in Unitarian churches is to point towards this Reality. That is the invitation. We invite all people, but it is a religious invitation to apprehend a greater Reality, set aside any idolatries, and recognise that beliefs are only a means to an end.

Because this Reality is life-transforming. It transforms lives, brings peace, joy, love, inspires people to bold acts of service and justice. It is worth getting up for on a Sunday morning, it is "the pearl of great price."

It is the beating heart of every true religion. And it needs to be the beating heart of Unitarianism. If it is not then we are an empty shell, and deserve to be swept away as an irrelevance in the twenty-first century.

Comments

Bill Baar said…
My Church's covenant written 1843 ends with ...but as seekers after truth and goodness.

We clearly welcome all as seekers and the direction is certainly reality, i.e. truth which we've joined to goodness.

UU's don't talk much about truth anymore (I don't think you mentioned it once!)

It is IMO what so many seek, and what we offer is the community to help you seek it, joined with goodness and cheer so when you find it, your disciplined and charitable enough not to ram it down everyone else's gullet.
Rich said…
Thank you for putting into words something I always have a hard time explaining... Why I can be atheist and at the same time have total respect for many of those who believe in a deity.
DairyStateDad said…
I completely agree.

As for whether Anglicans would welcome an atheist, I once heard the story of one who was told, "Oh, that doesn't matter!"
RevDan said…
Great stuff Stephen thank you
You state that 'Unitarianism is creedless' ; I think the term 'creedless' is unhelpful- it can suggest that our faith is an empty shell in to which we can pour whatever beliefs we choose. U-ism is non-dogmatic in that it does not prescribe a set of beliefs for members to assent to but churches frequently include affirmations during their services and often ask everyone to join together in saying them.I've always thought that the Seven principles of the UUA form a much better summary of the U-ian standpoint than does the much debated GA Object.
Yewtree said…
I think that many Unitarians' concept of God is so apophatic as to be indistinguishable from spiritual atheism (this to me is a good thing).

I agree, I was at pains to emphasise that we welcome atheists and don't expect them to change into theists - but we would want them to respect the views of the theists among us (just as we'd want the theists to respect the atheists).

I also agree that the Reality we are engaging with is more than just community - whether it's Spinoza's God, some variation on the Christian view of God, or the Ground of All being, or whatever.
Perhaps it is helpful to differentiate between "atheism" and "humanism" here? We might add that the history of rational dissent has at times made us allies of the politics of secularism (see support for the accord coalition etc).

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th