Skip to main content

Truth and Oneness

(I'm writing here just as a notebook basically as my ideas develop, this is not totally thought-through stuff, this is me jotting down some ideas)

I don't agree with the assertion that Unitarianism is primarily characterised by a belief in the authority and autonomy of the individual. I tend to think this is a post-modern perversion of what we're really trying to say about the nature of Truth. It is as mistaken to think "my truth cannot be questioned" as it is to think "the Bible's truth cannot be questioned." The foundation of religious liberalism (James Luther Adams expresses this well) is that NO truth is above scrutiny. All truths can be scrutinised and analysed. The trouble is we apply this idea happily to the Authority of the Church or the Authority of Scripture as ideas we have historically rejected from Catholicism and Protestantism respectively - but we refuse to apply the idea TO OURSELVES. We make ourselves Infallible Popes of our own individual religions, and believe our own particular dogmas can be questioned by no one. True we don't seek to impose our ideas on others, but neither do we exposes ourselves to the fresh air of free inquiry, opening ourselves to the possibility of finding greater Truth. "I believe this" or "I am a [theological position]" are dogmatic statements that be believe cannot and should not be open to scrutiny, questioning, or analysis. And so we  reject the free and responsible search for Truth for a pragmatic individualism that treats truth-claims as a matter of identity politics.

We are not the religion of the dogma of individualism. We are the religion of Oneness and Truth. The Unitarian approach should be that we are open to the fullness of Truth and affirm its importance.

This is different from other religions and their approach to Truth. Many other faiths will hold that Truth has been Revealed. For example: in the person of Jesus Christ the fullness of Truth is revealed to the world. Or, in the Qur'an the fullest revelation of Truth possible has been revealed to humankind. But when a Unitarian seeks after Truth their first conclusion is: - we don't have it yet. When considering the vastness of the universe, and the vastness of human experience our conclusion is "we don't yet have the fullness of Truth." So our approach has to be a "scientific" one to the deepest universal, cosmological, ontological and existential truths. We are not there yet, there is a long way to go.

But this does not mean that there are no truths to find on the way. Jesus Christ and the Qur'an - to continue to use those examples - clearly represent deep sources of truth, that we would be foolish to ignore. But we cannot affirm that these truths represent a full and final Truth. They are building blocks to truths, taking us so far, but not all the way towards Truth.

To affirm both Oneness and Truth means that Truth is universally accessible to all human souls. We are all in relationship with the same Truth and Oneness. But we find that many people express diverse and contradictory truths.

One response to this is to stick to the position "I have the full Truth - you have some perversion or contradiction of the truth." But this is ultimately arbitrary.

Another response is to give up on Truth: "Well we all have our own individual truths and there's no way to compare truths, and anyway truth doesn't matter so let's just not worry about it."

The Unitarian position should be to say, "There seems to be some important part of the Truth here and there. Let's hold on to these things but keep searching because clearly there is some more truth to find before we find the full Truth."

Our Unitarian position should not be "believe whatever you like. It's up to you, mate." Rather all of us are called to pay full attention to the truths humanity has found along the way, even as we know there is a need for us all to keep seeking.

When did we stop talking about Truth? When we realised it was all much more difficult and complex than we originally thought? Well it is. Hugely. But to give up on Truth is a betrayal of the journey we've been on since the beginning.

That's why I'd like us to speak a lot more about the search for Truth as one of our foundational principles.

Comments

Greetings, Stephen. I hope this brief note finds you well. Reading your post I thought you might be interested in a recent book by John D. Caputo called "Truth: Philosophy in Transit". In it he outlines a way of understanding truth that I think you will find very amenable. You can preview it on Google Books at the following link:

http://bit.ly/1tqPhue

Warmest wishes,

Andrew
daframs said…
Your comment is fascinating & very interesting, with much of your sentiment I am in complete agreement; but we diverge along the lines of concern for the truth beyond the person and the truth 'within' the person!

Just as the 'people of the world' were as one before their attempt ro build a tower whose top would reach heaven, when 'God' seeing what they were up too, came down and scattered them by confounding their language, so @ Pentecost, when the spirit descended & the disciples went forth to preach, each man heard it in his own 'tongue'! There's a connection here which it seems this space is not going to be big enough for me to make fully, but the connection IS significant I believe & its based on the capacity, or the refusal, to share, each man his(& possibly her} truth as it is discovered, not just, as it is asserted! A position that doesn't just honour the player on the field, but the observer on the terraces just as much as the officials on/around the pitch!

THis is an angle, as you rightly say - or indicate - that we ignore on the grounds, usually, that it is too private and perhaps too open to abuse to be comfortable, secure, and so far, tested. Its certainly not always very comfortable and can indeed be very painful, but, it seems to work!

Best wishes; Frank

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