Options in Unitarian Universalist Belief:
Humanism
October 12, 2014
Cedarhurst Unitarian Universalists
Dr. Bruce T. Marshall
Readings:
I am a humanist.
I agree with Protagoras that “the human is the measure of all things” and with
Sophocles that of all the many wonders of the world there is “none so wonderful as the
human.”
I am one with the “Humanist Manifesto” of 1933 in its assertion that the purpose
and practice of humanism is to:
(a) affirm life rather than deny it;
(b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it;
(c) endeavor to establish the conditions of satisfactory life for all, not merely the
few.
Albert Schweitzer, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, remarked that
“humanism in all its simplicity is the only genuine spirituality.” He spoke not of a
humanism that worships humanity but a humanism that seeks—without creedal test or
ritual requirement—to treat each human being as a center of meaning and value. The
adventure of religion is not in the discovery of Eternal Truth or Absolute Meaning, arenas
in which human beings do not and cannot deal, but in our individual and communal
search for and creation of meanings and values that dignify and enhance life.
from The Faith of a Humanist
by Ken Phifer, Minister Emeritus
First Unitarian Universalist Church of Ann Arbor
Despite its small size in numerical terms, the Unitarian denomination has long
occupied a central place in American history. As a historian, I think of Unitarianism in
terms of the important role it has played in the development of American theology,
literature, education, and reform.
Along with Universalism, Unitarianism pioneered the way for modernist
Protestantism in this country. Most of the theological positions that came to be occupied
by liberal Protestants during the later nineteenth century had been staked out fifty years
earlier by Unitarians and Universalists.
1
The innovative role of Unitarianism is not confined to theology; it is equally
obvious throughout American education, learning, and letters. The achievements of
Horace Mann in the public schools and Charles William Eliot in higher education, the
poet-moralists Ralph Waldo Emerson and James Russell Lowell, the historian George
Bancroft, statesmen of vision like John Quincy Adams and Charles Sumner—these and
many others testify to the impressive contribution of Unitarianism to American culture. It
is a contribution characterized by intellectual innovativeness and a strong sense of public
responsibility.
One sometimes gets the impression that the Unitarian Universalist denomination
today is an institution in quest of its own definition and purpose. There exist, however,
both a definition and a well-established role that can be found in your history. What you
will find there is a tradition of religious humanism. It links you with religious thinkers
throughout history who have affirmed the value of humanity. It is a tradition that has also
been open, for more than a hundred years now, to the insights of non-Western
spirituality.
Religious humanism, so defined, has played an important historical role in the
liberation of the human spirit. It is a tradition that, in this country, has inspired some of
the noblest efforts to fulfill the promise of American democracy. Although I am not a
Unitarian Universalist myself, I admire your tradition from afar.
Daniel Walker Howe
Chair of the Department of History, UCLA
Sermon
Freedom of belief is a core affirmation Unitarian Universalist congregations.
There is no creed stating what Unitarian Universalists must believe. As a result, we draw
inspiration and guidance from different traditions. Indeed, we speak of our many faiths,
but it can be unclear what those faiths actually are.
Hence, this series of sermons in October and November, in which I would like to
describe some of the faiths contained within Unitarian Universalism. I have two
purposes. One is to encourage you to think about what you believe. Some UUs are very
clear about which of the faiths best represents them. But most of us, myself included,
draw something from different traditions. So this first aim is to describe the traditions we
draw upon so that you can consider what these might offer to you.
A second purpose is to encourage understanding and tolerance of each other and
our beliefs. Woody Allen attributed the breakup of his first marriage to a terrible religious
conflict. His wife was an atheist; he was an agnostic. They couldn’t agree which religion
not to raise the children in. That’s how it sometimes feels among Unitarian Universalists.
We can be intolerant of differences among us which are really pretty minor.
2
The lack of a creed is a defining feature in Unitarian Universalism, but we are not
alone in taking this stance. For example, the three congregations that are participating in
the conversation series that started this summer and that will be continue throughout the
year—Westminster Church of the Brethren, St. Paul’s United Church of Christ, and us—
all three represent traditions that question creeds.
The Church of the Brethren states it quite directly. “We have no formal creed. We
simply try to do what Jesus did.” The United Church of Christ is a little squishy on
creeds. On the one hand, the denomination’s website states that the UCC “receives the
historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors.” But these are treated as historic
statements of belief, not as tests of faith. Here too there is freedom of belief.
So all three of these congregations affirm freedom of belief, but we’re not all
alike. A difference is that both the Church of the Brethren and the United Church of
Christ ground themselves in the stories and the testimonies of the Christian tradition.
Most Unitarian Universalists do not.
Two reasons for that can be found in our history. One is Ralph Waldo Emerson
and the Transcendentalist movement of the mid-19th century, which also included
luminaries such as Margaret Fuller and Henry David Thoreau. The Transcendentalists
urged that we seek spiritual truth not just from the Bible but also from sources such as the
world of nature, from human creations like literature and the arts, and from non-Christian
religions.
The second tradition that has moved us beyond the Christian fold is what we’ll be
considering this morning: religious humanism. Religious humanism as a clearly
articulated perspective is relatively recent among Unitarians and Universalists, dating
back to the 1930s. And among contemporary UUs, it seems to be waning; fewer people
label themselves as humanists. But religious humanism provides us with a perspective, a
way of approaching religious concerns. The language of humanism is our shared
language.
* * *
The classic definition of humanism dates to the ancient Greeks and was referred
to by Ken Phifer in the opening reading: “The human is the measure of all things.”
Actually, Ken cleaned up the language on that one. It used to read, “Man is the measure
of all things.” But the point never was that men as opposed to women are the measure of
all things. The point was that human beings, rather than the gods, should be at the center
of our philosophy and our ethics and our goals and ideals. That is, our central purpose
should be to work toward a better life for human beings.
Well, you might think, what else is there? But the traditional approach has been to
ground human experience in, as Ken Phifer phrased it, “absolute meaning and eternal
truth.” Humanism shifts the center of reference from the Absolute—the gods or God—to
3
the human. The purpose of life changes from worshipping the gods and honoring the
traditions to addressing human needs and pursuing opportunities to enhance our lives.
The argument against this shift is that human experience is too unreliable an
indicator to serve as the center of meaning and purpose. That we need something more
solid on which to depend, that we need absolutes, that we need God or the equivalent
thereof. Because we can delude ourselves about the human capacity for determining what
is right and true. And certainly there are examples throughout history of humanistic
movements spinning out of control when they lost their bearings. The French Revolution
is one example, guided by philosophical humanists whose slogan was liberty, equality,
fraternity. Nothing wrong with that, but it got out of hand, descending into a reign of
terror and ultimately paving the way for a new more authoritarian regime.
The argument humanists make against philosophies and religions that anchor
themselves in what are perceived as sacred realities and eternal truths is that they lose
touch with what is best for real people. Then church and state exist to serve themselves
rather than addressing human needs.
And so, for example, when slavery was defended as an institution that preserved
the economic and social viability of a community, it was the philosophical humanists
who said, well, isn’t this institution abusive of people? Ultimately, isn’t that what
matters? And when after slavery was abolished but then replaced by Jim Crow laws that
were claimed by many to be sanctioned by God, it was again the humanists who raised
the same question: “Isn’t this abusive of people? And isn’t this what really matters?”
Such is the role of humanism: to raise the question in whatever the context, “Does
this serve the cause of human betterment, worth, and dignity?” If not, what can we do to
enhance prospects for a better life for people in this world?
* * *
The word, “humanism,” as a philosophy that bases itself in the human condition
dates back only to the mid-19th century. But there are precedents that stretch back much
earlier.
When the ancient Greek teacher and philosopher, Socrates, was sentenced to
death, his crime was named as corrupting the minds of youth and atheism, that is, not
believing in the ancient Greek gods. His real crime, though, was that he encouraged his
students to question. Socrates was a heretic within ancient Greek society: he encouraged
questioning, openness, challenging authority when it did not serve the needs of the
community. All these are values of the humanistic tradition.
Going back further, pre-Socratic Greek philosophers sought to explain the world
in terms of human reason rather than myth and traditions. They questioned the existence
of the Greek gods; they affirmed the study of nature as a different domain than the
supernatural; they developed a process of rational inquiry. The philosopher Protagoras is
4
credited with that statement that became the core affirmation of humanism, “Man is the
measure in all things.”
In Asia, the Taoist teacher, Lao Tzu espoused a naturalistic and humanistic
philosophy that survives in the Tao Te Ching . The Chinese teacher Confucius created an
ethical philosophy based on human values rather than on the supernatural. As expressed
in one Confucian text, “People are the origin of gods. So … people first, gods second.”
In Europe, the philosophy of the Enlightenment helped pave the way for religious
humanism, as it also provided ideas that guided the founders of this country.
Enlightenment philosophers believed that the use of reason and intellectual inquiry would
promote happiness and prosperity. They discounted supernatural claims and sought
rational explanations for all aspects of the human and natural world. They fought against
ignorance, dogma, superstition, injustice and oppression. They promoted freedom in
human society and advocated that all religions be treated equally.
Enlightenment ideals gave intellectual foundation to the American Revolution and
were incorporated into many of the nation’s founding documents. Whatever their
particular religious affiliations, most of the early leaders of this country were influenced
by the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
In 1877, Felix Adler founded the Ethical Culture Movement which was—and is—
an expression of religious humanism. Ethical societies affirm a spirituality that conceives
the highest purpose in life as creating a just and humane society. They affirm the worth
and dignity of the individual and seek to bring out the best in each person. The
Washington Ethical Society on 16th Street is co-affiliated with the American Ethical
Union and the Unitarian Universalist Association. In their main gathering area is posted
these words, “Where People Meet to Seek the Highest is Holy Ground.”
In 1930, Charles Francis Potter, a Unitarian minister, wrote a book entitled,
Humanism: A New Religion. It argued for a religion freed of supernaturalism which, he
said, would enable us to address longstanding problems of human life. He said, “Man
has waited too long for God to do what man ought to do himself and is fully capable of
doing.” Religious humanism, he said, was “a religion of common sense.” Potter also
advocated such causes as women’s rights, access to birth control, reformed divorce laws,
and an end to capital punishment.
Then in 1933 another Unitarian minister, Raymond Bragg, spearheaded creation
of a document that would summarize the affirmations of religious humanism. This
became known as the “Humanist Manifesto,” which was signed by 34 people, including
15 Unitarian ministers and 1 Universalist minister. The Humanist Manifesto and Charles
Potter’s book became the founding documents of modern religious humanism.
In it, religion was re-defined as those actions, purposes, and experiences that are
humanly significant. The authors of the Humanist Manifesto proclaimed that “Nothing
human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love,
5
friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying
human living.” The aim of human life was defined as the realization of human potential.
The authors proclaimed their faith that, “Man (there’s that term again—early religious
humanists were really big into sexist language, but anyway...) will learn to face the crises
of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and
manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom.”
Religious humanism did not necessarily deny the existence of God. Some
humanists were non-theists; others were agnostic. (Sort of like Woody Allen and his first
wife.) But they agreed that we cannot know whether or not there is a Supreme Being. So
we are left with what we can know: human experience, human life. From that we build a
way of life, a code of ethics, a system of meaning, a religion. Upon the rock of human
worth and dignity, they proclaimed, we can secure our lives.
* * *
The primary institutional expressions of Religious Humanism today are found in
Ethical Culture societies and in the Unitarian Universalist Association. There is also
humanistic Judaism defined as a “human-centered philosophy that celebrates Jewish
culture without supernatural underpinnings.” In congregations of these traditions,
religious ceremonies are reconceived to address a humanistic outlook.
So, for example, the ceremony recognizing a new life—baptism in most of the
Christian world—is reconceived as a ceremony of welcome for this new life and of
commitment to our shared responsibility for this child’s care.
A wedding becomes two people committing themselves to make a life together,
rather than their union being sanctioned by God. In so doing, we try to make the wedding
ceremony personal. This marriage is not just any marriage; it’s bringing together two
unique lives to create a new entity: the union of these two people.
A Sunday service is less about worship of a deity than it is about seeking to
address the human needs. It is about inspiring us to be the best people we can be.
And a memorial service. Also very personal: focusing on what was unique and
special about this person we have gathered to mourn, to honor, to remember. On the
question of the afterlife, humanistic memorial services are usually agnostic: we don’t
know. So we focus on what we can know: the meaning of this person’s life here on earth.
The ascent of religious humanism during the 1930s did much to revive American
Unitarianism, which had lost some of its edge and was settling into what has been
described as a lukewarm liberal Christianity. Religious Humanism brought passion into
the movement, both from those who identified as humanists and from those Unitarians
who opposed the humanists. There have been lively debates between the theists and the
humanists in our midst.
6
Today, the fervor of those debates has diminished. Religious humanism, once the
radical challenger of old mainline Unitarianism, now has become the norm. My sense is
that younger people coming into our congregations do so with many assumptions about
what they want in a religious community that are expressions of religious humanism. And
yet, they are seeking something more.
Perhaps a way to explore the spiritual side of their being that religious humanism
might not know how to address.
Perhaps an entrée into the ancient stories and symbols of religious faith that
contain much wisdom and experience.
Perhaps access to a sense of the sacred, the experience that there is something
more to existence than the everyday.
Perhaps an expression of life’s meaning and purpose that isn’t so darned
reasonable.
And yet, the primary assertion of religious humanism remains continues to guide
Unitarian Universalists. It is that religion exists to serve real human beings, not the other
way around. We come together as congregations to help each other lead better, more
fulfilling lives. Our purpose as religious communities is, to paraphrase the Bible, to seek
justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with each other in full respect of the preciousness
and worth of every human life.
7