Skip to main content

Do Unitarians believe in the unity of religions?

I've been mulling something over. Peacebang asks if this is the best statement we can make about Unitarian (Universal)ism.

I've been thinking about the language used here: different people identify with different beliefs; this is fine because we're non-creedal, and we have principles that unite us. It's a negative way of putting it I think. It seems to suggest to me that beliefs don't matter. You can be a Christian or a Buddhist or a Pagan, but that's secondary, what unites us is our principles, therefore they matter more.

Yet how can we say that following Jesus is a secondary thing? How can we say that taking refuge in the dharma of the Buddha is an unimportant thing? These are life-transforming things. These are things that shape the entirity of one's life. And these are exactly the things that I go to church to to talk about, and to practice.

So how can these things live side by side in one community? There are three posibilities: one: they cannot, pluralist religion is impossible; two: for us to live side by side, religious belief must become secondary to basic ethical principles that don't really have the power to be life changing; or three: we hold a belief that there is something that unites all religions, there is the possibility of a unifying reality beyond all genuine experiences of enlightenment.

The third option is not without it's problems. And it may need more work to articulate is theologically, yet I would maintain that it's better than the other two options. It's sort of hinted at by some things that Unitarians say, and yet it doesn't quite seem to be something we've committed to wholeheartedly. Maybe there are good reasons for that. But I think the other option is to degrade the importance of all religions to maintain unity in diversity.

Wouldn't a better way to put it be to say that we affirm the unity of all religions and that we're engaged in a search for the unifying reality behind all religions, and that some of us do this by choosing and praticing one particular tradition? This seems to affirm the importance and power of religious traditions, while the language on the UUA website seems to degrade their importance. In short, we aren't united despite our diffferent religious committments, but because of them and through them.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good luck figuring this one out. The seven principles are completely humanistic, as are many UUs, so maybe for most members this issue simple does not come up because Jesus and Buddha are of some modest interest, but not a focus of attention.
Dudley Jones
jonesdudley@hotmail
Anonymous said…
Particular religious traditions are important to you. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily important to all Unitarians. I for one, am not looking for the truth behind all religions. I find some religious practices and teachers helpful, and that's it.

Trouble with Unitarianism is that when you think you've cracked it, someone comes along and says that they disagree ;)

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...