Four Reasons Why Unitarian Universalist History Still Matters
Category: Unitarian Universalism - General
As I wrote earlier, Unitarian Universalists can “lay claim to two centuries-old traditions: Unitarianism and Universalism. Both of these traditions have deep roots in American religious history, and offer theological insights that can still have meaning for us in the present.”
Fausto replied in the comments, “I question, however, whether we still make any meaningful effort to affirm and teach either of those traditions authentically.”
The first question I have is “WHY? Why isn’t discussion about and study of UU history more pervasive in our congregations?”
The most obvious answer is that our history is Christian, and many of us contemporary Unitarian Universalists are not. Maybe folks worry that re-engaging UUism’s Christian history will threaten the religious pluralism we enjoy today. I don’t fully understand this. I’ve studied UU history in some depth, and I’m no more Christian as a result of it. But I do have a deeper understanding of how we got to where we are today than I would have otherwise.
Another possibility is that UU’s aren’t threatened by our history, but also don’t find it particularly relevant to today.
Unitarian Universalist history may seem irrelevant because it is packaged mostly in academic tomes, which can be boring and intimidating. Personally, there are a few books on UU history that I’ve found lively and accessible (see “Resources on Unitarian Universalist History.”) But many more are just gathering dust on my book shelf.
And then there are the endless lists of famous UU’s, leading me to ask “So what if Clara Barton was a Universalist? If all I know about Clara Barton is that she founded the Red Cross, how does that help me in my spiritual life today?” These lists provide fun facts, but they don’t help us go deeper in our understanding of UU history.
The second question I have is: If Unitarian Universalist congregations did focus more on our Unitarian Universalist history, how might we benefit?
First, we could better introduce newcomers to our faith. People unfamiliar with Unitarian Universalism ask me all the time about our history (such as “When were you founded?” “I thought Unitarians were Christian — is that not right?”) I’ve found a short history lecture goes a long way in clearing up the confusion about our faith.
Second, we could deepen our understanding of our individual beliefs by considering the theological and social questions that were so important to our religious ancestors — even if we understand these issues in a different context today.
Third, we could increase our sense of pride and investment in our congregations. Unitarian Universalist history is not only the history of famous leaders or national organizations; it’s the history of our own church communities, whether they have been around for fifty years or three-hundred-and-fifty.
Fourth, we could increase our sense of unity as a religious movement. Yes, our congregations differ somewhat in worship preferences and theology (and even within our congregations, individuals differ on these same issues). But we are all choosing to be part of the same tradition, laying claim to the same legacy.
February 14th, 2008 15:08
I have been kicking around a blog post since a week ago Sunday when, after a sermon that was advertised as just what it was–a look at Unitarian History–someone in our congregation said something akin to “I didn’t like it; there was too much about God in it.”
First of all, like it? who cares. Experience the service, don’t approve or disapprove.
Second of all—Unitarian History without talk about God?
That’s like Oreos with no filling, if you ask me. Dry and pointless.
February 14th, 2008 20:04
Dear Shelby,
Very interesting post. It addressed an issue that has come up of late along the road of my spiritual journey. When I first came to UUism, only a few years ago, one of the things that made me proud to be a UU was our history: of each decision point along the way (the rejection of trinitarianism then of Christianity at least as a shared faith, the Congregational Platform, the split from the then-conservative now-UCC, and so on) represented a choice to reject traditional thinking or being in favor of religious freedom, noncreedal faith, and democracy rather than hierarchy. I am still proud of all of those things. However, I think the trend in our history does make it harder to embrace the idea of identification with history at all, and maybe this is where some of the topic you addressed arises. If a major part of the essence of UU history is a rejection of what came before, how can we look to the past rather than to the future? How can we build ritual and tradition, knowing that change and questioning are our core values?
(I’m going a bit beyond what you are advocating, obviously, and I’m certainly not as well versed in religious history. But I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.)
Thanks ~Miya
February 14th, 2008 20:11
Back again, after reading your previous post and the comments. I think some of what Fausto was getting at is what I have perceived as the what-we’re-not emphasis in UUism. We’re non-creedal, non-Christian (overall), non-homophobic, non-exclusive, non-judgmental, non-fundamentalist, non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive… The Unitarians (as they’re taught to us at a basic level) were Non Trinitarians. The Universalists _rejected_ predestination and damnation. I’m being a little overly symplistic, but at the same time, I don’t often have good answers - for curious friends, or for myself - of what we ARE and what we DO believe.
February 14th, 2008 21:14
On March 3, I’m giving my 4th sermon this year to a UU church on some aspect of southern Universalist Church history. (all of these sermons are in different towns _ I stay on the run). I admit that I tailor my talk to the group. I try to focus on the history of the area - and the towns if possible. I like to show that U and Us have been in this area for over 200 years. I like to show how they worked, sacrificed and even how the community reacted to them. Im surprised at the folks who have been members for decades and dont know what Unitarian or Universalist meant.
Miya, the early U and U weren’t a rejection of some of the orthodox Christian theology - they saw their views instead as a correction back to the original Christian Theology.
February 15th, 2008 11:58
uuMomma, Miya, and Steven R — Thank you for commenting.
I hear a couple of concerns and questions running through the comments:
1. The concern that discussing the theological history of Unitarianism and Universalism is the same as actually adopting the theologies of the past. I think this is what uuMomma’s fellow congregant is expressing, and maybe part of what Miya is concerned about too? The way I see it, learning about UU history and actually reverting back to our older beliefs are too different things.
We need to learn about our history, and that includes a frank discussion of what our UU ancestors thought about GOD! However, I am not a fan of the “our ancestors were Christian so we should be too” or “our ancestors believed in God so we should too” kind of thinking.
2. The question asked by Miya, “If a major part of the essence of UU history is a rejection of what came before, how can we look to the past rather than to the future?” This is closely related to another question….
3. IS “a rejection of what came before” really an important part of our UU history? Is this how our ancestors understood their beliefs and/or how we should understand them? Steven R argues instead that “the early U and U weren’t a rejection of some of the orthodox Christian theology - they saw their views instead as a correction back to the original Christian Theology.” (By the way, Steven, your history sermon sounds awesome!)
Miya, I hope this isn’t a cop-out, but I really need to take a few days to consider how to best answer #2 and #3, which I will do in an upcoming post. (In the meantime, anyone else who can take a stab at these, please do!)
#4. How do we answer the question of who ARE as UU’s without focusing on what we are NOT? The way that works best for me is to talk about our history, about the spiritual activities happening in my congregations, and about the principles of Unitarian Universalism that have been most meaningful to me. However, there are a lot of different ways UU’s address the question. I do it’s important, as Miya suggests, to focus on what UUism IS, without getting mired in what we’re not.
February 18th, 2008 13:41
Thanks, Shelby. And congratulations on your new UUWorld gig.
I think what I’m reacting to is the knee-jerk reaction to hearing the word “God,” even in the context of who we were. As you say, I think it is important to recognize the where we come from as we decide who we are now. And, recognizing that who wear now is an ever-changing thing–as individuals, as congregations, as a denomination. But your thoughtful response here has challenged me to move forward with acceptance of those who react to God for whatever reason. Thanks, again!
February 19th, 2008 23:03
Hi uuMomma, I’m smiling as I read your post; it’s nice to hear that you’re feeling more able to accept the fellow congregant’s reaction, however knee-jerk it may be :wink: I think the challenge of how to deal with other congregants who either promote theologies we strongly disagree with, or who shut off all discussion of theology, is something a lot of UU’s grapple with.