From the writing of the Rev. James Luther Adams: "God (or that in which we may have faith) is the inescapable, commanding reality that sustains and transforms all meaningful existence. It is inescapable, for no one can live without somehow coming to terms with it. It is commanding, for it provides the structure or the process through which existence is maintained and by which any meaningful achievement is realized... It is transforming, for it breaks through any given achievement, it invades any mind or heart open to it, luring it on to richer or more relevant achievement; it is self-surpassing reality. God is the reality that works upon us and through us and in accord with which we can discern truth, beauty or goodness. It is that reality which works in nature, history, and thought and under certain conditions creates human good in human community."
From the writing of the Rev. Gary Blaine: "I for one am not interested in a still life religion. I am not interested in a religion that gathers dust or grows moss. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, I care not for the spiritual sepulchers of our fathers and mothers. Give me a religion that experiences everyday resurrections. Give me a religion that moves with life. Give me a religion that grows with people. Give me a religion that expands the horizons of my heart and mind every day. Give me a religion that challenges me to reach beyond the mediocre and status quo. Immerse me in journey that will find meaning in the ordinary. Launch me into the Holy Quest that finds universal value in the scandal of my particularity."
In some ways, our liberal religion is not an easy religion to understand. Some, like the bureaucrat in a tax office in Texas, do not even consider Unitarian Universalism a religion, but some strange new sect. He thus denied a UU church its tax exempt status. My guess is that he couldn't conceive of a religion that didn't have a set of creeds or articles of faith which one had to accept. Thank goodness that a higher authority won out in the end and reversed that decision.
Not only is our faith not easy to understand for those who view religion in more orthodox terms, but our Unitarian Universalist faith is not for those who believe they need an authority to tell them what to think and how to live. Or for those who believe in Original Sin and the moral depravity of human beings. Ours is a much more hopeful religion. We believe that human beings are born with an innate sense of what is fair and just and with the inherent ability to develop a conscience and be guided by it. Of course there are rare exceptions, but they are notable for their rarity. This inherent ability just needs proper nurturance, through loving example, instruction and guidance, particularly during the early years of human development. So we encourage people in our religious communities, especially our children, to think for themselves, to develop their own moral compass.
Yet it is a challenge for those of us who are Unitarian Universalists, even long time UUs, to quickly and easily answer the question "What is it that UUs believe?" A couple of years ago, Rev. Bill Sinkford wrote in the UU World magazine, "I always encourage people to work on their elevator speech, what you'd say when you're going from the sixth floor to the lobby and somebody asks you, "What's a Unitarian Universalist?" I must admit that I haven't developed my own elevator speech, but I like a couple which were published later in the magazine. Pat Jaworski of the First UU Church of Nashville, Tennessee wrote, "Unitarian Universalism is a religion for people who are trying to live a good human life, regardless of their religious beliefs. Unitarian Universalism welcomes people of all different beliefs, encourages us to seek our own spiritual truths, and believes in a balance of-and a respect for-both reason and emotion."
That's a great start, I think, but it doesn't really provide a lot of substance to chew on. The individual spiritual journey is something sacred to all of us, but we often feel like we'd like more guidance. We often turn to our seven Unitarian Universalist Principles and Purposes as a kind of substitute creed. We can all agree on things like the inherent worth of each individual... and the value of the democratic process. But I think those UU Principles have their limits, too. I think they sound more like a political manifesto and are not very spiritual. They're too devoid of religious language. So where do I turn to for guidance, if not a definitive or absolute statement? I turn to some of the greatest minds, the authors and preachers of our UU history.
One of these great creative minds of recent history was James Luther Adams, a UU minister, author, and professor of religion and social ethics at various colleges and theological schools. As a youth, he rejected the fundamentalist Christianity of his father, a bible-thumping preacher in the West. Adams first became an ardent atheist in college and then a passionate and charismatic Unitarian minister. He wasn't what you might call a systematic theologian. But he wrote a lot about the liberal religious beliefs which have withstood the test of time and which we generally hold in common. Born in 1901 and living into his 90's, he came as close as any in the 20th Century to drawing a full picture of our unique faith.
Adams or JLA as he was known by his students and admirers wrote many articles and essays over the years. Some of the best of these were published in 1976 in a book called Being Human Religiously. I've heard many stories about JLA and one of them was that he was so busy teaching, writing essays, articles and sermons and being involved in social activism that he didn't have the time to actually sit down and write a book. So he relied on Max Stackhouse, who was himself an eminent writer and professor, to do the careful selecting and editing necessary to turn his fine writings into a book.
The first chapter of Being Human Religiously is titled "Guiding Principles for a Free Faith." They have the catchy label the Five Smooth Stones of Liberalism. This is a play on the five smooth stones that young David picked up to fight the mighty Goliath. So these are the peaceful weapons in the arsenal of liberal religion.
Here's the first stone or principle of liberalism: Revelation of the divine is not sealed. Ours is not the "still life religion" which Gary Blaine refers to... the one that sits gathering dust or growing moss. Our liberal faith is based on revelation or insight into the divine which continues into the present and the future. We Unitarian Universalists do not turn solely to the Bible or any other sacred text for glimpses of sacred truths, but on our own experience and reason as well as the guidance of other wise ones whom we trust.
One important requirement for "continued revelation" is that we have the freedom to explore, to experience and to think for ourselves. We are all on a sacred quest for our Holy Grail, the truth which will not stand still. Truth is alive in the moment in human and natural history. It is based on reality, on lived experience. It is based on the context in which we live, a context which is far greater than ourselves.
Some modern liberal theologians talk about God acting in or through this world which is our home. For many of you, I know that God is a very laden term which is fraught with, as JLA puts it, "unacceptable connotations." Indeed, JLA invites people who don't feel comfortable with the word God to substitute the phrase "that which ultimately concerns humanity" or "that in which we should place our confidence." I find all that awkward and hard to remember. Those long phrases which don't come trippingly off the tongue. I prefer to use the shorthand "God" or "divine spirit" or some other simple wording.
Adams writes, "God (or that in which we may have faith) is the inescapable, commanding reality that sustains and transforms all meaningful existence." In other words, although God may be mysterious, the reality which God created can be known. Indeed, such reality is impossible to escapable... including the laws of nature which govern it.
Have you stood on an ocean shore in the middle of a storm and been in awe of the sheer grandeur of everything around you... the power of the wind and the waves? I did so recently while on a retreat in Narragansett, Rhode Island when the after-affects of Hurricane Wilma hit the southern coast. It was an awesome sight. I felt what the Transcendentalists describing as a direct encounter with the divine. At the other end of the scale, have you observed the marvel of life under a microscope? Indeed, one of our pioneers in liberal religious education, Sophia Lyons Fahs, taught children about the wonders of life using microscopes. Revelation is not sealed and we as conscious and aware beings can continue to experience the divine in nature and in our own lives.
The second major principle of liberal religion according to Adams is that all relations between persons ought ideally to rest on mutual, free consent and not on coercion. Some might add not on manipulation either. He qualified this statement, saying, "Obviously, this principle cannot be advocated in any strict or absolute sense. Education, for example, may be compulsory within the liberal state..." (p. 15)
Historically, the Protestant Reformation began as a protest against an ecclesiastical pecking order and the coercive power it held. Soon people also protested against political and economic pecking orders. The movement toward democracy in church and state is founded on the basic theological assertion that we are all children of God. This implies more than equality. It means that we have within us something of the divine. It means that all persons by nature have the potential to "share in the deepest meanings of existence," that all person have the capacity for discovering or responding to 'saving truth,' and that all are responsible for what they do to bring about a better world. To Adams these are religious affirmations about the nature of human beings. And "these religious affirmations are ... the basis of the liberal's belief that the method of free inquiry is the necessary condition for the fullest apprehension of either truth or justice, and also for the preservation of human dignity." In plainer language, we must be free to explore for what is true and just and we must be free to preserve our human dignity.
Equally important is freedom of conscience along with the burden of responsibility for one's actions. Each person must ultimately decide for themselves what is right or wrong. There are no infallible authorities, only guides like the words of the prophets and the deeds of saintly men and women. We also rely on our growing knowledge of nature and of human nature to guide us. Understanding grows in free and open discourse, and cannot be imposed from above.
We know all too well what limitations on freedom of inquiry and freedom of conscience do to societies. The most obvious examples are totalitarian states like North Korea and Iran. But some examples are more subtle and exist even in relatively free societies. I know many of you are aware of the threat in Kansas schools to the scientific method and the teaching of the theory of Evolution by the requirement that teachers teach the so-called theory of Intelligent Design. When science is redefined by a state to include "supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon" we're in very big trouble! While not exactly thought control, it certainly limits the freedom of teachers to teach the truth as they know it and for students to discern the difference between science and matters of religious faith.
So this second principle ...that relations between persons ought to rest on mutual, free consent and not coercion... extends to freedom of thought as well as to action and is extremely important to a liberal society.
The third major principle follows naturally, I think, from the previous one. Religious liberalism affirms the moral obligation to work toward establishing a just and loving community. This obligation falls on each and every one of us to do our part, however small. The idea of a community of justice and love originated with the faith of the Old Testament prophets. Their faith repudiated empty, self-serving piety, exclusive devotion to ritual and blind devotion to blood and soil. The "holy" thing in life is to take part in those processes that give "body and form to universal justice."
Jesus expanded on that idea and preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, that the seeds of such just and loving communities already existed in history and in the human heart. These seeds of justice and love only needed the right conditions to flourish. And we human beings had the power to bring about this flourishing with a little divine guidance, to transform the world.
In order to create such real communities of love and justice, we are required to use our real power in the world. As JLA states, "It requires not only the power of thought but also the power of organization and the organization of power." This leads to the fourth principle of liberalism: "we deny the immaculate conception of virtues and affirm the necessity of social incarnation." This is more than a clever play on the words of the Christian creed. It means that we must get our hands dirty with the work of the world. Of course, human being misuse power and Adams was well aware of this. He had been in Germany studying theology at the beginning of Hitler's reign and witnessed the abuse of power first hand. In fact, he had an uncomfortably close brush with the Nazis when he was brought in for questioning by SS officers. He left for the safety of home soon afterward. Adams sums it up this way, "Injustice in community is a form of power, an abuse of power, and justice is an exercise of just and lawful institutional power."
But without organization for power, there is no lasting freedom... and no lasting public or private virtue. Thus we are urged not shy away from the good uses of power and to involve ourselves in the work of both justice and love. This work is most effectively done in groups, whether through political parties or other voluntary associations. In JLA's view, the more such voluntary organizations the better for democracy. In fact, since no one has the absolute corner on truth, it is best to have many views represented in the halls of power. Hopefully, in the spirit of freedom and free inquiry and with open and honest dialogue, the truth, perhaps a complex and nuanced truth, will emerge. And the outcome will be a society which nurtures the best and most creative potential in all of us.
This theme of hope is highlighted in the fifth principle. "Religious liberalism holds that the resources (divine and human) that are available for the achievement of meaningful change justify an attitude of ultimate optimism." He cautions that "This view does not necessarily involve immediate optimism." In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., the long arc of the universe bends toward justice. Neither King nor Adams were naïve, but possessed a strength born of undying hope. Adams had witnessed war, the "rebarbarization" of the common man and the dissolution of ethical and spiritual values. He witnessed the "appearance of great collective demonries." Yet he held that liberalism could still be cautiously optimistic about the future. "Thus," he writes, "with all the realism and toughmindedness that can be mustered, the genuine liberal finally can hear and join the Hallelujah Chorus..."
With the help of God, that great creative, sustaining and transforming power of the universe,
Let us hold on to the spirit of liberal optimism.
Let us dream and work for a community of justice and love.
And in the end, may we hear and join the Hallelujah Chorus.
James Luther Adams, "Guiding Principles for a Free Faith," in On Being Human Religiously, Max Stackhouse, editor (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976)