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

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

Art Lester

  I've just heard the extremely sad and shocking news of the death of Unitarian Minister Art Lester. It shocked me even more as I was emailing him a few days ago as he spontaneously emailed me thanking me for my book and offering to send me a copy of his latest one (pictured above).  I already feel like I've missed the opportunity to get to know him better, as he's the kind of person I would really have liked to have been a mentor as he always seemed wise and spiritually rooted, in a mischievous, not-taking-himself-too-seriously way (which is a good sign of spiritual maturity I think).  He ended his email with, "I attach a portion of a sermon I’ll be giving at the Paris Fellowship next month.  It’s my 29th service over the past 27 years and possibly my last.  I wouldn’t normally bore a colleague with my scribbles, but I think you might like this one."  I do. I do like this one. And as he now won't deliver this at Paris Fellowship I thought it was worth shar...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...