The New Humanism

Navigation

A Church That Would Have You As A Member

Doug Muder

A Humanist Guide to Unitarian Universalism.

Print This Article

by Doug Muder

"There was a moment in the 1960s or 1970s when Unitarian Universalism might have become an unofficial Church of Humanism.

Unitarian Universalism has long had a unique relationship with Humanism. What other religious group would showcase an outspoken atheist at its national convention, as the Unitarian Universalists did when they invited Kurt Vonnegut to give the prestigious annual Ware Lecture at the General Assembly of 1984? UU Humanists have their own national organization (HUUmanists) with their own journal (Religious Humanism). In a 1998 survey, nearly half of UUs identified themselves as Humanists. The New Humanism publisher Greg Epstein spoke at the 2008 General Assembly, and has been invited to speak again in 2010.

Unitarians were largely responsible for the first Humanist Manifesto. In his 2002 book Making the Manifesto, former Unitarian Universalist Association President (and the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year for 2000) William Schulz claimed that there were more Humanists in UU churches than in the AHA.

Few other religious organizations have so consistently stood with Humanists in those battles where traditional morality and human rights take opposite sides. The lead plaintiffs in the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case took their vows at the Boston headquarters of the Unitarian Universalist Association, with then-UUA President William Sinkford officiating. About a hundred UU ministers—a significant fraction of the entire UU clergy—marched with Martin Luther King in Selma in 1965, and the murder of one of them (James Reeb) provided the white martyr that President Johnson needed when he urged Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. Another UU (James Barrett) was murdered in 2003 while trying to protect an abortionist from religious-right violence. Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel laureate who led an international groundswell of scientists pushing for a nuclear test-ban treaty (and co-founded the International League of Humanists) was a UU.

UU General Assemblies have passed more than a dozen resolutions supporting the separation of church and state. People for the American Way founder Norman Lear was another Ware lecturer in 1994. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a Unitarian Universalist, was the first member of the U.S. Congress to announce in public that he did not believe in God.

Small wonder, then, that when Humanists go looking for a like-minded community—a place to raise a child in humanistic values, look for social-action allies, celebrate a wedding or solemnize a funeral, or perhaps just be reminded once a week that American consumer culture is not the only alternative to God—the local Unitarian Universalist church is a prime option. There are about a thousand UU churches around the country (far more than Ethical Culture societies or other Humanist-friendly groups), and you can find at least one in every state of the union.

But can Humanists searching for community solve their problem that easily? Should we all just go join UU churches? As a Unitarian Universalist myself—I am, in fact, more comfortable identifying myself as a UU than as a Humanist—I wish I could make that sweeping recommendation in good conscience. But while many Humanists are happy as UUs, many others are not, and every year some number of UU Humanists stomp out the door in disgust.

So would you be a contented parishioner or a stomper-out-the-door?

Probably the best way to get a handle on Unitarian Universalism is to understand where it comes from. Believe it or not, the story (or at least the Unitarian branch of the UU family tree) starts with the Puritans. When they came to the New World in the 1600s, the Puritans weren't any kind of Humanists or even particularly liberal Christians. But Puritan churches lacked two features that anchor religious institutions against the progressive forces of evolution: They didn't have a creed and they didn't have a hierarchy.

Each local congregation was supposed to read the Bible for itself, and no external authority could force a congregation to read it any particular way. Puritans believed that an external authority was unnecessary, because the Holy Spirit would keep pulling congregations back to Christian truth. What happened instead was that many of those congregations drifted towards liberalism.

The drift was gradual, but over the centuries the small changes added up. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, people like William Ellery Channing started interpreting the Bible according to reason rather than tradition, and noticed that some of the more unreasonable Christian doctrines, like the Trinity, were also un-Biblical. So they affirmed the unity rather than the trinity of God and became known as Unitarians.

By the middle of the 19th century, Ralph Waldo Emerson was challenging the uniqueness of the Bible itself, which he saw as the record of one people's inspiration. People in other times and places (like us here and now) might hope for their own divine inspiration. And if that was the goal, why not look to Nature or Art rather than to scripture?

From there, each generation of Unitarians became a little more humanistic than the last, until by 1920 Unitarian minister Curtis Reese could announce to his colleagues (in public, no less) that God was "philosophically possible, scientifically unproved, and religiously unnecessary."

The fact that Cotton Mather was not rolling over in his grave was, in itself, powerful evidence against the Afterlife.

Reese-style Unitarian Humanism was controversial for about a generation, but by the time of the merger with the Universalists in 1961, it was the majority point of view in most UU churches. Since then things have drifted in a different direction—about which more below.

This unique history explains the otherwise bizarre combination of features you will find in a typical UU church. If you walk into a UU Sunday-morning service wearing earplugs, you might imagine you are in a Christian church. Families arrive together and children go to their classes. Adults stand up or sit down in unison. Sometimes they sing together or read together out of the hymnal. There might be a choir and an organ. Candles might be lit. More often than not, a minister will stand up and give something that might be called a "talk" or an "address," but looks an awful lot like a sermon.

UUs might appear to be imitating the more popular Christian denominations, but they're not. Like the evolutionary product it is, Unitarian Universalism comes by all that stuff honestly through a common ancestor—the same way that dolphins get their lungs.

No matter how naturally those Christian trappings arise, though, they provide the first test of whether you'll be happy as a UU: If they drive you crazy, independent of the service's intellectual content, then your life as a UU will be difficult. Don't torture yourself.

But if you can tolerate the appearances—I've grown to like them myself—then take out your earplugs and listen. You'll hear a message that is not always capital-H Humanist, but is decidedly humanistic: People of goodwill need to look past their disagreements about metaphysics and start fixing the world—where fixing means creating the conditions for human happiness and fulfillment here and now, not preparing our invisible souls for some higher happiness after death. The world's many scriptures are read for inspiration, not for authoritative pronouncements, so a UU discussion doesn't end when someone quotes the Bible. Prayer is a community meditation on human needs and desires, not a request for supernatural favors. Science's description of the physical world is accepted, and while UUs may at times be skeptical about whether technology is creating a Heaven or a Hell for us, they completely understand and sympathize with the scientist's desire to solve whatever earthly mysteries might be solvable. Unlike Bluebeard's castle, a UU universe has no locked rooms.

Before you say "sign me up," though, you need to consider the continuing drift of recent decades. There was a moment in the 1960s or 1970s when Unitarian Universalism might have become an unofficial Church of Humanism. Humanism was clearly the dominant philosophy and all forms of traditional religion were in retreat. Many UUs felt that their centuries-long evolutionary journey was done now: They had shaken off the barnacles of orthodox Christianity and had arrived at Humanism.

Many still feel that way, but the community as a whole has gone in a different direction. Particularly among the ministry, there is a trend to view traditional religion not as an encrustation to be shaken off, but as a resource to be mined. The solid shore of Humanism is largely taken for granted, but from that shore many 21st-century UUs dive back into religion, to see what can be salvaged: community-building rituals, teaching stories, techniques of personal transformation, invocations of awe and wonder, and so on.

And so, religious words that once seemed to be on their way out—worship, prayer, God, holy, sacred, salvation, divine, and many others—are on the upswing again. If you tap on those words, if you ask what UUs are trying to get at by using them, chances are you'll hear an explanation largely compatible with an underlying Humanism. But if you view the words themselves as the carriers of a dangerous infection, you'll find today's UU churches to be unhygienic environments.

Finally, UU congregations are tolerant to a fault. Literally anyone can show up at a UU church, believing any kind of craziness, and will not be told to go away. (In fact, if you take it on yourself to tell someone he or she doesn't belong, you are the one who is likely to be reprimanded.) If you mingle at the coffee hour after the Sunday service, you may run into astrologers, crystal gazers, faith healers, and new-agers of all varieties. They won't be anywhere close to the majority and most of them don't stay more than a few months. But if one such encounter ruins your whole week, you won't be a happy camper.

In short, if you are allergic to the appearances and words of traditional religion, Unitarian Universalism is not for you. If you are looking for a community of pure and unadulterated Humanism, you won't find it at a UU church.

But if you want to be accepted for the Humanist you are, without any fudging or hypocrisy, you can have that. If you want allies in the struggle to make the world a better place, you can find them. If you are stimulated by diverse points of view and enjoy engaging people who frame the world differently (but not too differently), a UU church is a good place to meet them.

If you came to my church, you'd be welcome. You might be happy there, or you might not. Only you can judge.

Comments

Add your own

Dan

28 Jan 2010 · 15:53 EST

Good summary, Doug. I only wish you had mentioned William R. Jones, the African American humanist Unitarian Universalist minister who wrote Is God a White Racist? c. 1973. Jones contended that in the face of extreme injustice, e.g. racism against African Americans, humanists would be wise to find common ground with liberal theists -- instead of arguing theology, it makes more sense to find allies in the fight against common enemies. Yes, I'm grossly oversimplifying a complex and nuanced argument (you should read the book yourself), but you can see why Jones, a humanist, might make the effort to be a Unitarian Universalist.

Doug Muder

29 Jan 2010 · 00:18 EST

Dan, I'm guessing this is Dan Harper, who mentioned "Is God a White Racist?" to me this summer at the UU General Assembly. I did read it, and you're right, it deserves mention. Thanks for adding that comment. A recent issue of the HUUmanist journal, "Religious Humanism", was devoted to a retrospective on "Is God a White Racist?" Doug Muder

Frank

29 Jan 2010 · 01:51 EST

Thanks for the this article. The only thing I would add is that the UU churches also vary quite a bit from one to the next, when it comes to the degree of theistic/nontheistic flavor.

Alan MacRobert

29 Jan 2010 · 05:38 EST

When called on to explain the UU church quickly, I give this 15-second elevator speech: "This is the church where you don't have to fake it. You never have to pretend that you believe in things that you actually find implausible." Another way to put it: "This is the church where you're free to believe what you *really do* believe, without apologies."

Kirk E.

31 Jan 2010 · 14:04 EST

Thanks for this Doug. I've attended a couple of UU congregations, and found the people very welcoming. But you are right, Humanists have to accept the crazies, the religious talk and use of religious texts. Instead, I've started attending an ethical society. The local group, although small, is a place of like-minded people. I would be very interested to hear your take on this movement and if it has the capacity to take in an influx of new Humanists.

Marilyn

01 Feb 2010 · 03:22 EST

This article was perfectly timed in my world. Last week, a humanist had asked me the following question. Since she believed that she did not belong in any church, how could I belong there? We had a great conversation. But, I needed more updated printed information and had precious little time to write it up. You did. Thanks! Secondly, I'll send her to this magazine.

Jim Farmelant

01 Feb 2010 · 13:50 EST

Certainly Doug's piece what, from a humanistic standpoint, are the most admirable aspects of the UU church. The church;s commitment to social justice, the acceptance of science, and the embrace of reason should be enough to merit respect and admiration from humanists of all stripes. While, I have little direct personal experience with the UU church, I have no reason to bash UUs. After all the HUUmanists sought fit to publish an article that I had written on the New Atheists in the Religious Humanism journal. That's enough to win my respect. Also, my friend Tom Clark has given talks on naturalism at various UU churches which generally been well received by the UUs. Having said all that, there does seem to be a few things about the UU church that is likely to rub at least some humanists the wrong way. There is, as Doug mentions, the churchy aspects of UU. UU is a church, historically derived from Congregationalism. Some humanists may get passed all that but there us another thing that Doug mentions that may not be too appealing to many humanists. Doug tells us that, "And so, religious words that once seemed to be on their way out—worship, prayer, God, holy, sacred, salvation, divine, and many others—are on the upswing again." He goes on to write, "If you tap on those words, if you ask what UUs are trying to get at by using them, chances are you'll hear an explanation largely compatible with an underlying Humanism." That kind of thing sounds a lot like the approach to religion that the philosopher John Dewey took in his book, *A Common Faith*. Indeed, as far as I can tell, Dewey's humanistic approach to religion as had a great impact on UU thinking. In *A Common Faith*, Dewey as a naturalistic humanist proposed that it was possible for us to hang on to what was valuable in religion while dispensing with its traditional supernaturalism. This could be done by taking some of the traditional vocabulary of religion, including the term "God", and redefining these words in naturalistic humanist terms. Thus, Dewey wrote: "The idea of God, or, to avoid misleading conceptions, the idea of the divine, is one of ideal possibilities unified through imaginative realization and projection. But this idea of God, or of the divine, is also connected with all the natural forces and conditions -- including man and human association -- that promote the growth of the ideal and that further its realization. We are in the presence neither of ideals completely embodied in existence nor yet of ideals that are mere rootless ideals, fantasies, utopias. For there are forces in nature and society that generate and support the ideals. They are further unified by the action that gives them coherence and solidity. It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name 'God.' I would not insist that the name must be given." In defense of the retention of this 'God-talk', Dewey went on to write: "One reason why personally I think it fitting to use the word 'God' to denote that uniting of the ideal and actual which has been spoken of, lies in the fact that aggressive atheism seems to me to have something in common with traditional supernaturalism. . . . What I have in mind especially is the exclusive preoccupation of both militant atheism and supernaturalism with man in isolation. For in spite of supernaturalism's reference to something beyond nature, it conceives of this earth as the moral center of the universe and of man as the apex of the whole scheme of things. It regards the drama of sin and redemption enacted within the isolated and lonely soul of man as the one thing of ultimate importance. Apart from man, nature is held either accursed or negligible. Militant atheism is also affected by lack of natural piety. The ties binding man to nature that poets have always celebrated are passed over lightly. The attitude taken is often that of man living in an indifferent and hostile world and issuing blasts of defiance. A religious attitude, however, needs the sense of a connection of man, in the way of both dependence and support, with the enveloping world that the imagination feels is a universe. Use of the words 'God' or 'divine' to convey the union of actual with ideal may protect man from a sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance." Certainly, Dewey makes a strong case for his position, but from the beginning, many humanists have objected to it. Indeed, almost immediately, two of Dewey closest students, Sidney Hook and Corliss Lamont objected. They argued that Dewey's proposal to retain much of the traditional language of religion, while redefining things in naturalist terms was likely to cause confusion, both among traditional religious believers and among humanists. I think they were right. Also, Dewey's contention that militant atheism necessarily a involves a a "lack of natural piety" and that it promotes a feeling of indifference or hostility to nature is not well supported. Although one can find certain varieties of atheist writing that would seem to support Dewey's contentions, it is also the case that there is a long tradition of atheist writing, starting from Lucretius's great philosophical poem, "De rerum natura" that is highly appreciative of the natural world and of the inseparability of man from nature. This tradition continues to the present day in the writings of various philosophers and scientists, who while rejecting supernaturalist belief, are not lacking in what Dewey called "natural piety." The biologist Richard Dawkins is one contemporary example. This tradition, in my opinion, shows how it is possible for naturalists and humanists to get the sorts of things, like transcendence and an appreciation of the beauty and wonders of existence, that Dewey wanted to get out of a naturalized religion, without our necessarily having to hold on to the language and the ritual trappings inherited from the supernaturalist religions.

Paul Creeden

02 Feb 2010 · 00:58 EST

This article interested me. I appreciated the brief recap of UU history. It is helpful to be reminded that the UU church is a dynamic institution. One of its strengths. My life has been enhanced by experiences in UU churches. The Charles Street Meeting House, still a UU church in the 1960s and 1970s, enabled the early Gay Liberation Movement in Boston. It was the epicenter of the gay community for several years in the early 1970s. Gay Community News, the first widely read gay newspaper in New England, began in the basement on a purple-inked mimeo machine, which I occasionally cranked on publishing day. The sidewalk in front of the Meeting House hosted a warm-weather cafe which was the first open, outdoor gay venue in Boston. Later, the Arlington Street Church drew many GLBT community members and hosted early peer meetings for Positive Directions, a grass-roots HIV support organization, when most organizations would not want people with HIV in their buildings . While I always see the UU church as a friendly and open institution, I still see it as an institution based in traditional, clergy-driven religion. The church has a small front stage, raised above a larger, observing audience. This promotes a certain dynamic which I do not see as generally promoting individual practice and responsibility. Perhaps the difference between HUUmanism and Humanism is this simple at this time. Humanist communities now tend to consist of smaller circles, which occasionally coalesce into larger events. I find this to be the most attractive part of the new Humanism. Less lecture, more conversation and potentially more community service. Maybe the coffee hour of the UU church is its essence for many HUUmanists? Just a thought. As a person with a humanist practice, I would suggest that Unitarian Universalists, as an organized institution, could continue to further the cause of a new Humanism quite easily by actively offering meeting space for all forms of secular humanist groups under their well placed roofs across the country, as some UU churches once did for the early GLBT movement. HUUmanists could profoundly foster the growth of a new Humanist movement.

view all comments >