Why I'm not Unitarian Universalist

I'll start off by saying that I respect the Unitarian religion greatly, I am close with people who are Unitarian, and wish I could become one. If you read my blog, you would probably think I am Unitarian. As I've said, philosophically I'm a religious pluralist, which means that I think all religions are valid paths to the same Divinity. Unitarianism is a religion that accepts all faiths. When I first heard about it, I thought it was a perfect match. In fact, one of my heroes, Ralph Waldo Emerson, was a Unitarian minister. I own a two-volume set of his sermons. But I learned quickly that Emerson's religion doesn't exist anymore.

Simply put, I'm too Christian to be Unitarian but not Christian enough to be Christian.

Emerson's Unitarianism was rooted in Christianity while drawing on other religions as extra soul-food. Currently, the Unitarian church not only accepts all religious faiths, but anti-religious faiths too: atheism, agnosticism, whatever. How does that work? There is no single religious impulse or belief that binds them together. I've learned this from direct experience. I attended several Unitarian services, in Lansing and Kalamazoo. I personally asked the minister whether there were any beliefs that held them together. Belief in the Divine perhaps? Belief that there is something beyond the physical? The soul? No, she said. If there is anything that binds them together, "we believe in human experience," they share in it, she said (paraphrasing and, to be fair, she didn't have time for a full response. To be more fair, I respect this minister so much I had her officiate our wedding).

But besides "human experience," what really binds them together? It turns out that Unitarianism is an ethical-religio-political group of left-learning liberals (so am I...that's not my point). Politics, I think, is the glue that binds them. Conservative political ideas are their enemy, their "out-group." Still, they suffer from identity crisis. What does it mean to be Unitarian? After attending several sermons, I noticed a trend: they talked about themselves a lot. I don't blame them; so do other churches. And Unitarians are so damn nice that they are constantly worried about offending each other. Should we use the word "God" in this song? No, we can't! Stuff like that.

Having said all of this, I'm so glad that Unitarian Universalism exists. When I'm older, I'll probably become one. Like all churches, it's the kind of thing that you should get involved in to get the most out of it.

My Religion

God exists. That is my religion.
Jesus preached the truth about God. That is my Christianity. That is all for me, thank you.

Oh, and in case you forgot what Jesus preached: Love your enemies. That is enough.

I have read so much about religion and theology that, instead of expanding my religion into a full blown systematic theology, I go back to the basics. Simplicity! says Thoreau. The simple religion of God and love is all I need for my life. I prefer it. My mind is full yet empty. Everything else, all the doctrine and creeds; that's all extra. Sure, I believe the soul lives on. Sure, I believe reincarnation is better than hell. I am not against beliefs or people having them. But these are all fancy additions to a firm foundation. God exists. God is good. God is love. Act accordingly. This alone lights up my world, always has. When you focus on what really matters, you begin to take it more seriously. For example, I believe in loving my enemies. Really? Really. And when Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I believe it. Literally, he really meant that? Yes, of course he did! Having enough love and understanding to actually love your enemies--that's the pinnacle of religion, the mountaintop, the goal.

Modern Western people tend to think of religion as a set of beliefs that you agree to, like filling out an application for church. No. Religion is life. Your religion is your life. As Karen Armstrong says in her books, the point of belief is action. Faith without action is dead. And, God forbid, you find yourself doing something stupid because of a belief, perhaps you should rethink it?

• Other Religions: I left for college a Christian and came back a "religious pluralist," or enlightened Christian (sounding arrogant). Religious pluralism allows space for other religions. It means all religions are valid paths to the same transcendent Reality. If God is beyond our comprehension, it makes sense. We look at the night sky and say "did you see that?"..."See what?" Religion begins. We experience the spiritual world differently. It's okay. Sure, some doctrines differ drastically among and within religions, but at the end of the day all religions share the same basic moral code (love and compassion). See John Hick.
• Prayer: sadly, I don't pray anymore. But I do believe in prayer as meditation on God, on yourself, on other people, and on your life. I believe it can have many psychological benefits, as some studies show. It makes you slow down and think, which is really important. I am against petitionary prayer; that is, asking for stuff. It's not that God doesn't care about you, He just thinks your silly little requests are silly. God works through the beautiful laws of nature that he created--deal with it. The best way to pray for healing is to become healthy. I know this is hard when it comes to accidents, cancer, and when bad things happen to good people. For that, we rely on faith alone, not prayers for God to "fix it." Again, religion is life. Live out your religion instead of relegating it to a sleepy Sunday night prayer session.
• Jesus: he was a mystic, a great man, a true spokesman for God, and my hero. In fact, the greatest hero in my life. He has opened my heart to love enemies more than anyone else, living or dead. That's an incredible thing. I do not think he was God (judging by what he says in the Gospels), but I am open to the fact that his death might mean something greater. If you ask me "did Jesus die for my sins?" I must admit I don't really understand the question. What really matters to me about Jesus is his teachings; diamonds in the ruff, life changing and world healing teachings.
• The Bible: experience is primary (you and God), scripture is secondary. Scripture, however, is special because it describes the original experiences that brought about the religion in the first place: Jesus preaching the gospel, Buddha sitting under the tree. It is crucial. Is the Bible the Word of God? Well, sure, the good parts are. But not the bad parts (and there are many).  Even Jesus criticized or reinterpreted many of the bad parts of the Bible. St. Augustine and many great Christian thinkers have taught us to interpret the Bible through the lens of love. They also taught us not to interpret the Bible against scientific fact. The truth, like God, is much too big for one book. As for reading the Bible, I stick to the Gospels, Proverbs, and Psalms--all beautiful books that have a direct impact on my life.

As I look back on my religious life, I must be honest with myself. My passion has lessened. As a high school kid who would wake up at six in the morning to read the Bible, when Christianity was fresh and new and God was opening my mind, I was much more zealous, excited, passionate. I was much more willing to go out of my way to help a perfect stranger (that's the sad part). I have tempered. In the Case for Faith, I remember reading that this is normal. We all become moderate with age I suppose. But my faith in the God of love has never been more rock solid. And the religious life never ends. I expect to have different views in 20 years.

Transcendentalism

Transcendentalism was a group of intelligent, socially conscious men and women walking around Massachusetts around the mid 1800's. Think Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau (although several women were major parts of the movement). Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance," the most uplifting words that have flooded my eyes, changed my life forever and continue to do so. I re-read Emerson yearly. Also Whitman's "Song of Myself." I will warn readers that the language and writing style of these transcendentalists can be rough-going and non-sensical at times, but for me it always penetrates my soul, leaving me with wisdom that is non-propositional, felt, based in conduct.

They took their name partly from Kant's "transcendental idealism". They accepted that a world exists beyond our perception of reality. There is a "transcendent" reality. Secondly, the world as we perceive it is, in part, a mental construct interpreted by our brains, "in our minds" so to speak, mental rather than physical. At bottom, Emerson says, Mind is primal, not matter; mind comes first. Thus they were "idealists". They were not anti-science.

They were anti-establishment, anti-authority. In other words, they agreed with Kant's definition of Enlightenment: think for yourself. They lived it. They were against slavery well before the Civil War. When Thoreau disagreed with paying taxes to pay for a senseless war, he didn't pay them. He went to jail instead. This inspired Gandhi. When Thoreau disagreed with the materialistic consumption of America, he lived in the woods and wrote one of the most influential essays in the world. They disagreed with each other and themselves. "Do I contradict myself?" said Whitman. "Very well. Then I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes."

They believed in the indomitable spirit of man, the amazing power of the self. We are God. "I am part and parcel of God," said Whitman. Therefore, we can do anything. Yet, amazingly, they were humble men. Emerson, an incredible man, was also tortured by his potential and his struggle to do great things; it haunted him.

They were unabashed optimists. Emerson, whose life was a series of family tragedies and suffering, was the most optimistic among them: "Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear."

They shared the religious and moral impulse, yet a fierce individualism found most of them in the ranks of Unitarianism, a pluralistic form of Christianity at the time. They hated dogma and loved the Divine so much they could not keep a religion. Emerson was a Unitarian preacher for a time; Thoreau's religion was nature; Whitman's God was in daily events: "I know nothing else but miracles."

Religious Pluralism

All religions are valid paths to a transcendent Truth or divinity (capital "T" Truth means it's an ideal--unattainable and yet real at the same time). Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism, and the Baha'i faith are all after the same thing. But across time, language, geography and history they find it in different ways. These different ways, beliefs and practices are philosophically compatible.

Wait a minute. Bull shit. Jesus is God. Muhammad is His only prophet. How are those compatible?

This is where Kant comes in (and John Hick's An Interpretation of Relgion). All of these "beliefs" are no more than beliefs; they are grasping at a transcendent world that we cannot reach, unverifiable speculations about the nuemenal realm; doctrine or dogma is not knowledge. Beliefs, by definition, can be wrong. Only knowledge can be truly incompatible with non-knowledge (error). Nobody can disagree with e=mc2. But "Jesus is God" is on the exact same epistemological level as "Muhammad is His only prophet." We simply don't know; thus we believe. Therefore, they are both equally valid ways of thinking about God. Because we will never know, they can both exist together just fine.

And that's okay.

Two people stand in front of a Van Gogh. It means this, one says. No, says the other, it means this! They both give reasons. Perhaps we should ask the artist? Well, he's dead--and would that even help? Thus we have two different meanings of a piece of art that are compatible and can exist together just fine.

When it comes to practice (ritual), religions are quite different. When it comes to metaphysical beliefs, quite different. That's to be expected. But when it comes to morals, very similar. The moral codes of the major world religions are all based on love, compassion, forgiveness. They are compatible. They ground virtue and suppress vice in amazing different ways. Sweep away the hypocracy and you are left with love as the bedrock of religion.

Pluralism is an expression of love for other people, yet this will not satisfy a lot of people. Religious Pluralism is not for people who get angry when other people talk about other beliefs. It's not for people who are offended by the existence of Islam, or who use religion to define what they are not (rather than what they are). It is not for dogmatic, intolerance, judgemental types. It's for people who love religion and take it seriously, who realize that they are Christian perhaps because they grew up in a Christian household or nation (and that's okay). It is for people who are humble, who have a lot to learn, who realize the transcendent nature of their beliefs and place their hope in them.