Universalist Unitarian Church Santa Paula, California

Underlying Unity: Hidden Secret of UU Religion
A Workshop at General Assembly 2000
by Reverend John Alexie Crane

II. The Depth Dimension in Religion
It was plainly manifest early in the 19th century, as the Universalist and Unitarian movements in America were developing, that they were liberal Christian in identity. However, in both movements during the latter half of the 19th century, division, discord, and uncertainty began to grow around the identity issue. (Robinson 68ff, 117ff; Lyttle 163ff)
A cultural mutation was evidently spreading through both movements, and it has continued to evolve throughout the 20th century. The rise of humanism after World War I added impetus to the development.
A significant foreshadowing of this mutation was apparent at least as early as the 1820s, when William Ellery Channing (a devout Christian) vigorously rejected two central Christian doctrines, the Incarnation and Atonement. He saw these as primitive, pagan conceptions. It was, Channing said, not Christ’s blood but rather “his spirit, his truth” that could redeem us. (Howe 42)
UU religion is liberal Christian in its origins; but we have evolved in the 20th century to a point where a majority of our people no longer describe themselves as Christian. Yet, this majority group has not so far been able to define the emerging identity. If we are not liberal Christian, what exactly are we? Majorities have proved often to be wrong, sometimes tragically wrong. Is it possible that the majority of UUs are leading the movement into destruction of its essential nature, propelling it into oblivion?
The statement of UU Principles created in the mid-1980s has given the mutated nature of the movement some degree of definition by creating a consensual outline of those values and aims on which UUs generally can agree; but it is evident to me this is only a beginning. It is the intention of this workshop to generate, if possible, some insight into this emerging, tentative identity.
Persisting uncertainty about our identity has made it difficult for us to explain our religion to others (and even to ourselves), to state clearly what it is that brings and holds us together. The recent Fulfilling the Promise survey posed this question to our people precisely because the answer is still in doubt. While we have existed for more than 175 years on this continent, we have, for much of our history, lived with ambiguity and conflict, with little consensus as to the essential nature of the movement.
Yet, at the same time, we have also sensed that, at some level, in some way, we are one, that there is a vital bond between us. It is also an observable fact that, when we gather in groups, even from widely diverse locations, we experience feelings of kinship. We resonate with each other.

III. Underlying Dynamics?
What is the source of this persisting conflict and ambiguity about identity, on one hand, and a dim sense of unity on the other? The answer, I think, is that the individuals in our movement, in their stated beliefs, may be Unitarian or Universalist, Christian or Jewish, Humanist, mystic, or Pagan, theist or atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever; but the movement as a whole is not identified by any or by all of these belief systems.
It is identified rather by its persisting and remarkable underlying dynamics. Which, from time to time, we manage partially to express in words (as in the statement of UU Principles).
John Buehrens, in one of his President’s Letters in the World, made a striking observation that sheds light on this assertion. He said that though we are diverse in our beliefs, “although we may differ in how we understand or name our faith, there is an underlying unity in which we are involved... We do not have to create this unity, it is given” (Buehrens)
It is my intention here to explore the contents of this tacit unity, to work at giving expression to some of its key elements.
There is some evidence that many UUs now not only sense this underlying unity, but agree more than we might expect on what it is in general. When our people were asked recently in the Fulfilling the Promise survey, “What is the ‘glue’ that binds individual UUs and congregations together?” 65% chose the response, “Shared values and principles.” The editor of the UU World, Tom Stites, summing up the findings of the entire survey asserted that it made clear our movement is growing more diverse in many ways, but it has a very solid core.” (World Sept ‘94)
This should not surprise us. Many religious scholars have observed that all religions are rooted in an underlying set of tacit assumptions, values, and presuppositions. For example, the British scholar, Gilbert Murray, in his Five Stages of Greek Religion, explored the impact of Christianity on the religion of the Greco-Roman world. In reference to Christianity, Murray noted that, “A creed or catechism is, of course, not at all the same thing as the real religion of those who subscribe to it.” Our real religion, he went on, our deepest and most effective beliefs are those on which we act without question, which we simply take for granted. (Murray 166-67)
More recently, contemporary theologian, Sam Keen, noted something similar when he observed that each stated religion, with its beliefs, rituals, customs, stories, myths, and symbols rests upon an underlying base, “an unconscious, habitual way of seeing things, an invisible stew of unquestioned assumptions....” (Herz 58)
We find references in philosophical theology to an entity in our minds referred to variously as standpoint, faith assumptions, tacit knowledge, presuppositions. Joseph Campbell used the poetic phrase “our own most secret motivating depths” to point in this direction. (Campbell 24)
Years earlier, William James, equally poetic, put it this way: it is, he said, in the twilight depths of personality, deep in our inner being, that “the sources of all our outer deeds and decisions take their rise. Here is our deepest organ of communication with the nature of things...” (James 61-2)
A number of UU thinkers have noted this depth dimension in our own religion. Gene Reeves, for example, while President of Meadville/Lombard Theological School, generated insight in this regard when he wrote, “I believe it is useful to attempt to distinguish consciously held beliefs from pre-reflective and pre-articulate beliefs.” (Reeves 2)
James Luther Adams also contributed when he said that, if we want to find out what UUs believe, we should take care to seek out the implicit ideas, values, and assumptions which find expression in what they actually do, in addition to noting what they say. Our colleague Roy Jones uses the phrase “reality assumptions” or “hidden commitments” to refer to the phenomenon.
All of these observations point toward what might be called the depth dimension in religion: the values, assumptions, ideas, preferences and presuppositions that underlie the stated belief systems people have come to cherish.
The implication is that there is explicit, stated religion on one hand, and implicit, unspoken religion on the other. “Real religion” Gilbert Murray called it. Which lies deep in ourselves, and is the underlying ground of our actions, decisions, thoughts, and feelings.
Our real religion (as opposed to our professed religion) may be defined briefly as the way, deep in ourselves, we tacitly understand the world to be, and the things we actually care about in it.
The aim here is to explore the contents of the underlying unity which John Buehrens called to our attention. The task, as he indicated, is not to create this unity, but rather to get in touch with it, to give expression to as many of its implications as we can. It is in this underlying unity that we will find the emerging identity of UU religion, will find the ‘glue’ that binds us together.

IV. Two Kinds of Religion
The question “what does your church believe?” is highly relevant when addressed to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, but the basic form of UU religion is such that this question has no definitive answer, because we are no defined by our shared beliefs. ¹ This, in turn, has generated considerable confusion in ourselves and others about the nature of our religion.

One of the major factors in producing this confusion is that believing has been highly valued in our society for centuries: a matter of life or death, of eternal life indeed. In the past people were burned to death for not believing in the true faith.
As a result, since every proper church is identified by a shared body of hallowed belief, UUs have long felt an obligation to assert that they believe just as much as any other religion.
Even though, in actual practice, fervent believers around the world have proved often to be destructive, a pervasive source of conflict, intolerance, persecution, oppression, and bloodshed; and, also, though UUs, in actual practice, plainly have a tendency to keep their beliefs to a minimum, to be somewhat tentative even about those they do hold (belief understood here as intellectual assent to religious creeds or doctrines).

Most institutionalized religions have been formed by centuries-old traditions, rooted in truth revealed by God to special individuals. Our own religion, clearly, is currently given form, much less by revelation and ancient tradition, than it is by reason and contemporary knowledge.
Which suggests that there may be (at least) three general forms of religion: mystical, traditional, and philosophical religion. This formulation, to be sure, is a broad generalization. There are no doubt many individuals in traditional churches who are philosophically oriented, and there are certainly many UUs who have a deep attachment to tradition, whether it be Universalist, Unitarian, Jewish, Christian, Pagan, or Buddhist.
However, in our religion the philosophical dimension has far greater influence than tradition in shaping the movement as a whole; while ancient revelation has been more influential in shaping traditional religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
It is a shared body of belief, however minimal, that brings people together in each traditional church. In Christianity the idea of the Christ and belief in him is, of course, always of central importance.
In UU churches, on the other hand, beliefs are radically various. Another way of characterizing the difference is a “community of believers” in contrast with a “community of seekers.” Believing is highly valued in traditional churches, while understanding is more important in philosophical religion.
We are a small minority in the vast body of organized religions: a community of seekers, practicing a religion that is more philosophical in nature than it is traditional. It is not, God knows, that we are superior to all other forms of religion.
Both kinds of religion are important in the scheme of things: traditional religion serves the highly significant purpose of providing a substantial degree of meaning and social order; while philosophical religion is less concerned with order than it is with truth, is indeed often a threat to the settled order. This form of religion, however, also appears, at its best, to play a significant role in society by promoting the creative cultural evolution of humankind.

V. Underlying Principles
The UU Principles and Purposes were established in the mid-1980s. They represent our most recent attempt to give consensual expression to some of the explicit implications of the underlying unity, and the formulation has been widely accepted in the denomination as valid.
We have tended to view the Principles one by one, as a list of values and goals on which our people can agree, even though their religious beliefs are widely various. However, when the Principles are examined closely, not as a list of separate items but rather as an integrated, interacting whole, they take on a highly significant depth dimension. ²
A remarkable thematic resonance emerges, and we begin to sense that there are principles underlying the Principles — hidden commitments. (Jones; Manly)

Before undertaking an exploration of these “hidden commitments,” consider the Principles in brief summary, so that we have them in mind. They are seven in number, and when taken in at one sweep, they interact thematically with each other, as well as with the whole:

We affirm and intend to promote:
1. the worth of the individual
2. justice, equity and compassion in human relations
3. acceptance of each other in our congregations
4. a lifelong search for truth and meaning
5. democratic process in church and society
6. a just world community
7. respect for the interdependent web of all existence

Notice that these Principles embrace the entire range of human experience: the individual; personal and group relations in both church and society; relations between societies in a world community of nations; all set down in the interdependent web of all existence, the ultimate context of it all.
To direct attention to the thematic resonance implicit in the Principles, consider the first and last (one and seven) as a pair: on one hand, the individual, separate, unique, alone; and, on the other hand, each individual as an inseparable part of the whole, of the interdependent web. We affirm both our individuality and our interdependence.
The principles between the first and last, two and three, five and six, each mediate the tension between individuality and interdependence in the various areas of existence: in personal relations and in world community; in congregations and in society as a whole.
“Each of the principles in between represents a particular balance between separateness and connection; each one represents a moral and ethical response to the tension at a different point along the continuum.” (Manly FLP 3)
Then at the midpoint between individuality and interdependence, principle number four, there is a value that stands alone. We covenant to affirm and promote “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”
The central location of this principle in the whole tacitly indicates not only that it is a primary human motive, that the search “is central to the human enterprise, but also... that the very meaning we search for, the meaning of human existence itself, is to be found somehow in the fact that we are at once separate individuals of worth and dignity and interdependent parts of an indivisible whole.” (Manly PBP 3-4)
What then are some of the “hidden commitments,” the “principles behind the Principles.”
1. First of all, underlying the whole is a tacit assumption that these principles, tentative though they are, provide us with a working hypothesis for promoting the creative cultural evolution of humanity, for, indeed, ensuring the survival of the species.
It is not that we assume the Principles to be the final answer to all the questions raised by existence. We are aware that they are at once tentative and, at the same time, that they may prove to be profoundly significant in serving to enhance the quality of human life.

2. Second, behind the Principles, there also lies a philosophical assumption that we share with science: that there is a vast entity, a unified reality outside us and within us, in which we live and move, a reality which has an intelligible nature. “The interdependent web of all existence” is the metaphor we use to refer to this reality. In addition, we assume that we have some knowledge of reality, and that the remainder is as yet unknown – is mystery.
3. Third, another element underlying the Principles viewed as a whole is a faith in the powers and potential of humanity, and, along with this, a trust that if, in community, we open ourselves to the nature of things, pool our necessarily limited, individual perspectives, then truth, understanding will emerge, will grow within each of us — in community. We need each other to find our way.

4. Fourth, for UUs, as the Principles tacitly state through their literary form, a central component in our religion is the search for truth, for meaning, and, underlying this is a tacit commitment, held throughout our lives, to enlarging our understanding of reality, of the interdependent web. This, indeed, is a value that underlies the philosophical form of religion in that minority in every tradition which practices it.

5. There is another significant element woven into the Principles. Implicitly expressed in them is a comprehensive love: caring about the quality of life of all human beings, as well as about that of the interdependent web, the ultimate context of our individual lives. Which is to say that, caught up in the Principles is the essential spirit of the Judeo-Christian tradition — not the letter, not the doctrines, but the spirit. The Principles celebrate the value in human affairs of equality, compassion, love, caring, and affirmation of life for all.
Jesus was shaped by the Hebrew tradition, and when he was asked how he would sum up its essential contents, he replied, drawing on the tradition: love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself; and, he later added, regard as your neighbor all of earth’s people.
Surely this is the spirit of the ancient tradition. This is the spirit introduced into our culture by the Hebrew prophets centuries ago, given focused and expanded expression by Jesus. (Armstrong 40-83)
In this regard, it is interesting to note that, after a lifetime given over to research, reflection, and writing on the history of Unitarianism, Earl Morse Wilbur, at the end of his two volume work on the subject, speculated about the future of the movement, given the direction of its development in the 20th century.
He concluded that the movement would continue to pay less and less attention to Christian doctrines or traditions, “and to place increasing emphasis on the application of the principles and spirit of Christianity” to the conduct of human life. (Wilbur 486)
William Ellery Channing made a parallel observation in the early 19th century when he rejected (as mentioned earlier) the central doctrines of the Incarnation and the Atonement, calling them idolatrous and primitive. It was, he said, not Christ’s blood that could redeem us, but rather, “his spirit, his truth.” (Howe 42)
Universalists and Unitarians have absorbed the spirit of Judeo-Christianity in the underlying unity that moves them, while rejecting the doctrines that emerged out of conflict, debate, and politics during the early centuries of the Christian era, (Armstrong 107-131)

VI. Underlying Assumptions
The underlying unity that inspires and empowers us is rich in its complex contents. What unites us creatively is an implicit, tacit, taken-for-granted vision that has coalesced in us: a set of faith assumptions, hidden commitments, values, a body of pre-articulate thought. Exploring this deep-lying vision is a taxing task, but one that we need repeatedly to undertake.

6. In addition to the tacit elements listed above, there is also in the underlying unity a major assumption about the nature of truth. A survey of our history makes clear that UUs have, from the beginning, cared deeply about truth. Not only revealed truth, but another kind altogether. What kind exactly?
Huston Smith pointed to it in his classic work on world religions. In the introductory chapter he cited an assumption he saw as underlying all religions: “The only thing good without qualification is... the enlargement of our understanding and awareness of what reality is ultimately like.” (Smith 19) ³

This is a value, an assumption that has from the first been profoundly influential in shaping our religion. A dominant motivation in UUs has been a drive to expand their understanding of the nature of things, “of what reality is ultimately like.” Which, in turn, suggests that:

• What matters above all to UUs, our ultimate concern, is the character and quality of our relationship to reality.

• Truth is reality as it comes to be contained in human substance: in individuals, in culture, in the accumulated wisdom of the species.

• Love is truth expressed in human relations; and when human relations are governed by love, they are in harmony with reality, with truth.

Many UUs, past and present, have lamented the undeniable fact that our movement lacks certainty, has no definitive answers to the questions raised by existence. Instead of certainty, we have diversity and ambiguity. Which, of course, is a characteristic of philosophical religion.
Traditional religions have final answers. Our kind of religion works from an assumption that transformative truth is not in words but in ourselves, in each living human being. ⁴
UU religion is defined, not by ancient and revered revelation, rather, it is defined by a commitment to truth as it is progressively realized in each living individual here and now.

The locus of religious truth, of transformative truth is within us, in each of us. We also assume that truth will emerge in the individual in community, and, in communion with the wisdom of all ages and traditions.
We have been motivated down through history by a deep, partially articulated faith. Moved by it, we have gradually developed an imperfect but valuable cultural structure, an institutional form of philosophical religion.

7. Another related philosophical assumption in the underlying unity is that truth is always and inevitably greater than any verbal statement of it. UUs have almost instinctively shied away from any verbal formulation of ultimate truth.

They have tacitly shared the insight expressed in the Tao Te Ching centuries ago: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.” (Lao-tzu 1) As a result, an unspoken UU maxim is “Beware of final answers.” We hold a deep-lying assumption that truth is most alive, not in words but in ourselves — in community.

8. As a result, each of our congregations (with all their manifest shortcomings) is a resonating community which, at its best, provides support, stimulation, acceptance, affirmation, and affection for its members as, walking together, they seek continually to enlarge their understanding and awareness of the nature of things.
This coming together of the community in search of truth is, without doubt, a sacramental act, and the space where it occurs is a holy place.

VII. Summing Up
The aim here has been to show that there is far more to our religion, to our stated Principles, than is immediately evident on the surface. There is a depth dimension to both, and we would do well to explore these depths frequently if we are to fulfill our promising and essential nature.
To sum up the line of thought undertaken here: first of all, our religion is identified, not by its beliefs, but by an underlying unity, a set of elements, largely taken for granted, only partially expressed in language. It is this unity that shapes our movement. It is the wellspring from which it flows.
We need to work patiently and persistently at getting in touch with, putting into clear language, as many of the implications of the underlying unity as we can consensually agree upon. As we did with the formulation of the Principles and Purposes, which we now cherish.
The findings of this exploration of the depth dimension may be summed up as follows:

• UUs assume there is an immense and unified reality outside us and within us, in which we live and move throughout our lives; and we assume also that it has a coherent and intelligible form.

• We act on a deep-lying assumption that getting as close as we can to an understanding of reality is a primary life goal for us. People all over the world who share this faith with us are our kin, whatever their church or tradition.

• Truth matters profoundly to us, and the truth that matters above all, transformative truth, we find not in ancient revelation, but rather in truth progressively realized in the present in each living individual.

• We hold tacitly that, if, in community, we pool our limited individual perspectives, then transformative truth may emerge in each of us. Our gathering in churches and fellowships in search of ever-growing understanding, in search of truth and meaning, is our central sacrament.

• Caught up in the underlying unity is the essential spirit of the Judeo-Christian tradition — not the letter, not the doctrines, but the spirit: that is, love, caring, compassion, universal in scope.

• Under the influence of the elements in the underlying unity, we have managed, with considerable struggle, to develop a decidedly imperfect but valuable cultural structure, an institutional form of philosophical religion.

• Beneath our Principles and Purposes viewed as a whole lies a tacit assumption that they provide us a working hypothesis for promoting the creative cultural evolution of our species.
We must continue to explore the underlying unity. As we repeatedly reflect on our words and actions, on what we do as well as on what we say, as we search the depths of ourselves and of our movement, we will no doubt move increasingly toward fulfilling the promise that is caught up in the essential nature of our institutional form of philosophical religion.

WORKS CITED
Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.

Buehrens, John. “President’s Letter.” UU World (Sept ‘94).
Campbell, Joseph. Myths to Live By. New York: Bantam Books, 1973.
Fowler, James W. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. San Franciso: Harper & Row,1981.
Herz, Walter P, ed. Redeeming Time. Boston: Skinner House, 1999.
Hesse, Hermann. Siddhartha. New York: New Directions, 1951.
Howe, Daniel Walker. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy 1805- 1861. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover Publications, 1956.
Jones, Walter Royal. “Our Hidden Commitments.” Unpublished sermon,1997.
Lao-tzu. Tao Te Ching, trans. Stephen Mitchell. New York: Harper Perennial, 1988.
Lyttle, Charles H. Freedom Moves West: A History of the Western Unitarian Conference 1852-1952. Boston: Beacon Press, 1952.
Manly, Frances. “First and Last Principles,” Fall 1997; “The Principle behind the Principles: A Grounding for Religious Education in the Next Generation,” April, 1999.
Murray, Gilbert. Five Stages of Greek Religion. New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1955.
Peck, M Scott. The Road Less Traveled. New York: Simon & Schuster,1978.
Reeves, Gene. “Faith, Hope, and Love: Some Practical Implications of Process Theology.” Collegium paper, 1983.
Robinson, David. The Unitarians and the Universalists. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. New York: Mentor, 1958.
Starr, Deane. “Unitarian Universalist Mythology.” UUA Pamphlet. Boston, 1970.

Wilbur, Earl Morse. A History of Unitarianism: In Transylvania, England, and America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1945.

Rev Dr John Alexie Crane
2880 Exeter Place
Santa Barbara, CA 93105-2218
(805) 682-3476

Lex1304@aol.com

¹ Belief and believe have a variety of meanings, some of which overlap in general usage with related terms such as faith, faith in, judge, think, am certain, am convinced. The terms are used here to refer to intellectual assent to religious doctrines or creeds. (Fowler 295)

² An insight developed by the UU minister in Niagara, NY, Frances Manly. See the list of Works Cited for titles. The phrase “hidden commitments” is the title of a sermon on the Principles by Walter Royal Jones who, in the 1980s, chaired the committee charged with formulating the Principles.

³ “...Truth is reality. That which is false is unreal. The more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we are to deal with the world. The less clearly we see the reality of the world... the less able we will be to determine correct courses of action and make wise decisions.” (Peck 44)

⁴ This is the central theme, incidentally, of Hermann Hesse’s novel, Siddhartha.