Universalist Unitarian Church Santa Paula, California

Underlying Unity: The Hidden Secret of UU Religion
by Reverend John Alexie Crane

Have your ever noticed how difficult it is to explain our religion to others? Have you ever wondered what it is that has held this rowdy, radically diverse group of believers together these 200 years past? Have you ever tried to put your finger on the identity of our religion? Have you ever asked yourself, as the Fulfilling the Promise survey did, what in heaven’s name is the glue that holds us together?

We really are an odd lot, we UUs. From the very beginning of our movement, we have lived with conflict and ambiguity, with little if any consensus as to our essential nature. Yet, at the same time, we have also sensed that, at some level, in some way, we are one, that there is a significant bond between us; and it is an empirical fact that we have continued to exist as a (more or less) organized movement for 175 years. It is also an observable fact that, when we meet in groups, even from widely diverse locations, we experience feelings of kinship. We resonate with each other.

The argument I want to make here is that individual UUs in their stated beliefs may be Christian or Jewish, Pagan or Humanist, Buddhist, atheist, theist, 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.

John Buehrens, in one of his President’s Letters made a striking observation that bears heavily on this. He said that although UU beliefs are radically diverse, “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.” I want to explore the contents of this hidden unity, to find my way, to some extent, into its depths.

There is compelling evidence that many UUs now not only sense this hidden 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, said it made clear that our movement is growing “more diverse in many ways, but it has a very solid core.”

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.

One of the ideas that, years ago, set me to thinking about all this was a brief passage in a book by the British scholar, Gilbert Murray, titled, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Murray said, “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.

A number of UU ministers and theologians have noted this depth dimension in our own religion. Gene Reeves, for example, brought some precision to this tentative line of thought when he wrote, “I believe it is useful to attempt to distinguish consciously held beliefs from pre-reflective and pre-articulate beliefs.”

James Luther Adams also pointed toward this insight: if we want to find out what UUs believe, he said, 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.

My colleague Walter Royal Jones uses the phrase “reality assumptions” to refer to this phenomenon. All of these observations point toward what might b e called the depth dimension in religion: the values, assumptions, ideas, preferences, and presuppositions that underlie the stated belief systems that people have come to cherish. Things taken for granted but not expressed.

My aim here is to explore the contents of the underlying unity which John Buehrens called to our attention. Our task, as he indicated, is not to create this unity, but rather to get in touch with it, to express in tangible language as many of its implications as we can, then to explore what it means for the conduct of our shared religious life in community.

It is in this underlying unity that we will find the identity of UU religion. will find the glue that binds us together.

II. 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 our religion is such that this question has no definitive answer. We simply are not defined by our shared beliefs. This in turn has generated considerable confusion in ourselves and others about the nature of our religion.

One of the causes of this confusion is the fact that believing has been highly valued in our society for centuries. A matter of life or death. Being called an unbeliever is a gross insult. As a result, since every proper church holds a common body of belief, UUs have felt an obligation to prove that, by God, they believe just as much as any other religion. Though in actual practice, fervent believers around the world have again and again proved to be wondrously destructive, an endless fount of intolerance, persecution, oppression, mayhem, and murder.

You would think that UUs would realize that, actually, they have a strong tendency to keep their beliefs to a bare minimum, and to be rather tentative about those they do hold. You would think they would be inclined to agree with the 20th century thinker who asserted that: “For the convinced believer, understanding or direct contact with reality is exceedingly difficult.” 1

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 two general forms of religion: call them traditional religion and philosophical religion.

To be sure, this is a broad generalization: the distinction is one of emphasis. There are no doubt many individuals in traditional churches who in practice are philosophically oriented; and there are certainly many UUs who have a deep attachment to tradition, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Pagan, or Buddhist. However, in UU religion the philosophical dimension has far greater influence than tradition in shaping the movement as a whole; while ancient revelation has been noticeably 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, beliefs are radically various. We might characterize the difference as a “community of believers” as contrasted with a ” community of seekers.” Again, a broad but helpful generalization which helps us understand our identity.

It is not, God knows, that we are superior to all other forms of religion. It’s that we found this “underlying unity” had taken form within us — given. It apparently emerged out of the interaction between ourselves and the nature of things as our personal being developed. I do not myself know which of the two kinds of religion is the ultimate, have no idea which of the two God smiles on.

My guess is that both emphases, both kinds of religion are vitally important: traditional religion serves the highly significant purpose of providing a substantial degree of social order; while philosophical religion is less concerned with order than with truth, is indeed often a threat to the settled order. This religious orientation also plays a significant role in promoting the creative cultural evolution of our species.

III. Underlying Values

I want to spend a few minutes exploring the values we tacitly share, as they are no doubt a significant component in the underlying unity. If you have been involved in our religion for less than twenty years, you may not be aware of a study of UU values published in the journal, Review of Religious Research, in Spring 1976. As I worked on this underlying unity idea, I remembered the study. I knew that most of our people had rejected it not long after its publication, though I could not remember why this was.

Since I live only a few miles from my university library, I thought I would have a look at the work. I was moved to do this because I also recalled that the research had set out to “discover whether there is a distinctive value system for Unitarian Universalists which distinguishes them from other religious groups.”

After a close reading of the original study, I found that it established unmistakably that this was true: that there was indeed a typical constellation of UU values, remarkably uniform in us, and different from the values of people in traditional churches and temples, as well as from those with no church connection.

Even further, the study revealed that UUs were far more alike in their underlying values than other groups, and that their value pattern was unaffected by any other variables. For example, while rich Protestants and rich Catholics were found to hold different value systems than poor people in their churches, rich and poor among UUs shared the same pattern. New members in our churches had the same values as longtime members — not true in traditional churches. UU values varied little from one region to another.

Well, given all these valuable insights the research revealed, whatever could have moved UUs to dismiss it? As I analyzed the data, I began to see what had happened. There was one flaw in the design of the study, and two other items perceived by our people as flaws. The real flaw made it appear that UUs cared far less about world peace than traditional church people. Worse still, the two perceived flaws indicated that ambition and cleanliness mattered little to us. You can see why our people might have been grumpy about this. It suggested that we were shiftless, unwashed, and belligerent.

When I recently reread the article, I found that the item on world peace was an actual flaw in the design, but also that it did not bear at all heavily on the overall findings. The perceived flaws were not flaws at all, but reflected a failure to grasp the essential structure of the values survey. It was not that cleanliness and ambition did not matter to UUs; just that they mattered much less than other values important to us: like loving, independent, broad-minded, intellectual, imaginative, forgiving, logical, etc.

To be sure, we need to be cautious about accepting Miller’s delineation of the exact contents of the values component in our underlying unity, as the data is now over 20 years old. In general, he found that UUs typically valued self-respect, wisdom, mature love, a sense of accomplishment, inner harmony, the intellect and imagination, and independence.

Whatever the precise pattern may prove to be, the fact that a “distinctive Unitarian Universalist value system” existed in the mid-1970s strongly suggests that something similar is true today. This resonates with the finding of the more recent Fulfilling the Promise survey which indicates that we see ourselves as being united by “shared values and principles.” The survey also supports Miller’s finding that self-respect ranks very high on our scale of values.

The FTP survey shows in addition that we rank community very high; and that we now value “spirituality, warmth, and joy” along with our longstanding affection for the intellect and reason. It shows also that we share a concern “to build a more just world,” that we want our churches to be “a force for good in the world.” Which, in turn, points to a highly significant assumption in the underlying unity, as we will see.

We cannot state with any high degree of certainty the precise pattern of the underlying values we share. However, we can safely assume that there is such a pattern within us, as both the Miller and FTP studies indicate; and that we need to continue to search the depths of ourselves, to observe what we do as well as what we say, if we are to expand our awareness of this key component in the underlying unity that inspires and empowers us.

IV. Underlying Principles

The Principles and Purposes 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 among us as a valid statement. It is now often used as descriptive of our way of faith, and as a constellation of ethical principles that guide our lives.

We have tended to view the seven principles one by one, as a list of the ideals, the goals, the values that unite us. I discovered recently, however, with the help of a colleague, Frances Manly, that the principles develop a highly significant depth dimension when we view them as an integrated whole, rather than as merely a list of separate items. Viewed as a whole, a remarkable thematic symmetry emerges. Manly chose the phrase “the principle behind the Principles” to describe this phenomenon.

Manly contacted another colleague, Roy Jones, who had earlier headed the committee charged with formulating the Principles and Purposes. Roy responded that he too had found an intuition growing in himself that, under the Principles, there lay a set of what he called “reality assumptions,” or “hidden commitments.” Things taken for granted but not expressed.

The three of us began exchanging notes by e-mail, also taking into this informal, internet think tank, two more colleagues, Marge and Fred Keip, who had also begun exploring this area. Out of the interaction between us we developed an awareness of several underlying assumptions.

Before I cite these, consider the seven Principles in brief summary so that we have them in mind: we affirm and aim to promote:
1. the worth of the individual
2. justice, equity and compassion in human relations
3. acceptance of each other in our congregations, and also encouraging each other to grow in spirit
4. a lifelong search for truth and meaning
5. democratic process in church and society
6. world community
7. respect for the interdependent web of all existence

Notice that these principles touch upon the whole range of human experience: the individual; personal and group relations in 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.

The major insight that emerged for me out of our five way discussion of the depth dimension of the Principles as a whole was as follows. Underlying the whole is a tacit assumption that these principles, tentative though they are, provide 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 committed to them as our best understanding so far of the implications of the underlying unity deep within us, our given faith. We are aware that they are at once tentative and, at the same time, profoundly significant in serving to enhance the quality of human life.

Then, 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 structure. “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 still beyond our grasp. We are committed throughout our lives to enlarging our understanding of reality, of the interdependent web.

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 individual perspectives, then truth, understanding will emerge, will grow within each of us. In community. We need each other to find our way.

For UUs, as the Principles indicate, a central component in religion is the search for truth, for meaning, and, underlying this is the tacit assumption that getting close (and ever closer) to reality is a primary life goal for us. This indeed is a value that underlies the philosophical form of religion all over the world.

In addition, there is an underlying 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?

Many UUs past and present have lamented the undeniable fact that our movement lacks certainty, has no solid answers to the questions raised by existence. In place of certainty, we have ambiguity. Which is one of the characteristics 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.

As a result, UU religion is defined, not by ancient and revered revelation, rather, it is defined by a commitment to truth as it is progressively realized within 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 this truth will emerge in the individual in community, and, in communion with the wisdom of all ages and traditions. We hold a deep-lying assumption that truth is most alive, not in words but in ourselves. In community.

We have been motivated down through history by a deep, only partially articulated faith, and we have developed gradually a wonderfully imperfect but valuable cultural structure, an institutional form of philosophical religion.

As a result, each of our congregations (with all their manifest shortcomings) is a resonating community which provides support, stimulation, 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.

V. Summing Up
The line of thought I have been pursuing here is 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 must frequently explore these depths if we are to fulfill our promising and essential nature.

In the last few minutes, let me see if I can sum up what I’ve been saying. 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 visible language. It is this that makes us what we are. My own understanding of some of the contents of the unity of values, assumptions, preferences, and presuppositions that hold us together is as follows:

• 1. We assume that 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 structure.
• 2. 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.
• 3. 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.
• 4. 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.
• 5. The underlying unity that shapes us contains a unique pattern of values, remarkably uniform among us, a pattern which differentiates us from other groups. This underlying values constellation has moved us to develop “a different way of being religious.”
• 6. 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.
• 7. Beneath our Principles and Purposes viewed as a whole lies a tacit assumption that they provide a working hypothesis for promoting the creative cultural evolution of our species.

It is my hope that we will continue to explore this underlying unity. As we repeatedly reflect on our words and actions, as we search the depths of ourselves and of our movement, it is my expectation that we will move increasingly toward fulfilling the promise that is caught up in the essential nature of our philosophical form of religion.

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

Lex1304@aol.com