Unitarian Universalism

Part I
A system of Symbols

It is not uncommon for a religion to base its beliefs around a central book of teachings. Christians have the Bible, Mormons have the Book of Mormon, and Muslims have the Koran. Unitarian Universalism is unique because it lacks a central book. The Bible is important but they believe in reading all religious books as if they were in a religious studies class instead of Theology class, Unitarian Universalists read with a critical eye, not simply accepting any religious text. The critical eye and lack of a central book allows Unitarian Universalists to search for spirituality in religious texts as well as transcendentalist and current authors. The Surmons of Ralph Waldo Emmerson play a vital role in Unitarian Universalists system of symbols to establish beliefs.

Emmerson was raised near the end of New England Puritanism; according to the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society Emerson is “the most recognized and revered figure in the Unitarian movement”. His sermons were said to encourage and uplift all the people who went to see him speak even if they didn’t really understand what he said. Emerson once said “the search after truth is always by approximation”. He advocated, “the kingdom of god is within you” (Mott 53). These two principles are central in Unitarian Universalism however it’s an idea that is not actively preached in other religions.

Most religions like Mormonism for example want people to accept that their book is the truth. Islam forces followers to think that there is no God but Allah and Muhammud is the profit. It’s strange to think that a person can still be a Unitarian even if they don’t accept a profit or a sacred text. If prophets are not essential in religion why have all religions before Unitarian Universalism had one? Before I started this class I considered a profit essential to the definition of religion.

When reading Emerson through Unitarian Universalist lenses it’s tempting to look for why Emerson could be considered a prophet. For Unitarian Universalists Emerson simply establishes key principles not sacred texts. I think the one of the most important ones is “the search for truth is an approximation” (Mott 53). This quote establishes the critical eye that Unitarians have when looking at all things. It’s not cynical it’s simply a way of preventing conflict, if someone is never sure of what is truly the correct religion they can never disagree with a person who holds different beliefs. The critical eye allows Unitarians to practice another key principle that Emerson illustrated which was equality for all. 

As far as establishing a system of symbols it is important to remember that Unitarian Universalists don’t rely on one person. Emerson is a key figure but he is not a prophet. He preached values that are consistent with what Unitarian Universalists believe, but he did not establish the system of symbols. This is important because there may be elements of Emerson’s beliefs that are not consistent with Unitarian values especially since the world has evolved to become more complex today than when Emerson lived. Unitarian Universalists beliefs can evolve with time because they learn their core values from many different sources.

             

Part II

How the Right Views Unitarian Universalism  

Unitarian Universalism has been struggling with the negative characterization by the religious right for a long time. It is important to note that Unitarian Universalism embraces people of all faiths whether they believe in heaven and hell, only heaven, or neither. In this video Mr. Ankerburg only addresses those Unitarian Universalists that believe in heaven and accept Jesus as their savior.

Mr. Ankerburg’s attack on universalism is very flawed. We can never know for sure if there is a heaven or hell it is only through speculation and religious text that we know of heaven and hell. Heaven and hell have existed in many different forms throughout history. For example the Indians of Wisconsin believed that there was an upper world and a lower world and they built Indian mounds honoring both worlds to maintain balance. Some Unitarians belief that heaven and hell might not exist or their might only be a heaven is very uncommon in religion. It is no surprise that Mr. Ankerburg takes offence to such a revolutionary concept, his religion has believed in heaven and hell since it was founded.

Believing only in heaven does have many advantages. It promotes the belief that goodness can be found in everyone. It equalizes all people so the beggar is not less spiritual than a person who is wealthy. If people believe that they are all equal it promotes valuing those that are less fortunate. In general I think that humanity can coexist much better if they aren’t separating those that are going to heaven from those that are going to hell.

The belief in heaven and hell is not the only division that deeply separates Unitarian Universalists from the religious right. Modern times have brought many social, beliefs, values, and perspectives that shape public and private life. For example the Religious right has been promoting the right to life and the ban on gay marriage for years. Universalists deeply oppose these ideas. It is very interesting that the bible can spark such sharp contrasts in ideas, but Unitarian Universalism couldn’t be farther from the religious right.

Universalism “is a promise to theologically hang in there with the complexities and cruelties of the human enterprise” (Alexander 37). In this way it appears similar to the Rastafarians rejecting the influence of Babylon. Universalists aim to reject the influence of injustice by promoting the “natural worth and preciousness of people”(Alexander 36). The inspiration provided by Unitarian Universalism allows people to continue in the face of adversity much like Rastafarianism gave the disadvantaged people of Jamaca hope. It uplifts the soul instead of guilt tripping people and providing reasons that humans are bad and God wants to damn humanity.

It is interesting to note that even 200 years ago around the creation of Unitarian Universalism the puritans were still preaching that “hell’s gaping mouth [is] wide open, and you have nothing to stand upon or take hold of” (Alexander 33). This statement sounds very similar to Mr. Ankerburg’s argument. Mr. Ankerburg is not looking for the best in humanity. Unitarian Universalists present a much more positive view of spirituality because they preach “the tenacious acceptance of every human person” (Alexander 37). As a bystander the Universalist approach religion seems to be just as effective and much less stressful, I find it hard to spend ones life conscious the inevitable damnation that humanity faces in the afterlife and still live a positive life. Why live a cynical life when one can live positively?

III

The Glue of Unitary Universalism

At first glance Unitary Universalism seems like it is not really held together that well. It appears to be many people who believe different things, but value love. This video certainly personifies the difference between many people who are Unitary Universalists.

It seems that these people have nothing in common, except the very obvious fact that they all go to the same church. However, Unitarian Universalists are deeply connected. The Covenant links Unitarian Universalists together; “In Universalism a covenant is a promise that members of a congregation make to one another, transforming them from a collection of individuals into a faith based community” (Fervert). In Unitarian Universalist churches the church service will open with the recitation of the covenant in unison.

It is interesting that in each church the covenant is different. At first I saw this as a weakness because how can a faith attempt to be unified if they recite different covenants. This could lead to drastic differences in beliefs. It is another aspect of Unitary Universalism that separates them from most religions. For example in Mormonism The Church of Latter Day Saints makes sure that each church follows the customs of the religion. I realized that Unitary Universalism promotes equality on a spiritual level by letting each community choose how they want to open their service. The way the Unitarian Universalist church works is very similar to the American political system. Allowing people to pick their opening prayer is reminiscent of Federalism. The system of belief is divided up into localities so it can better represent the people in the community. For example Unitary Universalists who live in a largely conservative community might side more towards including God in their covenant. A very liberal community might community might choose a covenant that speaks of love, knowledge, and freedom, and plays down the role of god.

The Covenant is a genius way to tie the community together. Speaking it aloud reaffirms that what one is saying is true. And speaking it together connects the community and unites people despite their differences. I think the tolerance that Unitary Universalists preach is reflected well in letting each community decide what to say for their covenant. With this type of tolerance it’s no wonder that Unitary Universalists feel a deep connection with each other even if their bond seems tenuous from the outside perspective.

             

Part IV
Membership Problem

With such collective freedom Unitarian Universalism does face a problem. Unitarian Universalism combines people of all faiths so how does someone know if they are a Unitarian Universalist? As is the general theme throughout Unitarian Universalism people define membership differently. The membership problem is breaking the bonds of traditional religions. For example Mormonism clearly illustrates what it means to be a Mormon and there is no question about how one becomes a Mormon.

I consider it a problem that Unitarian Universalism does not have a clearly defined route to membership. By letting each church decide how a person becomes a member it seems reminiscent of federalism again. Each locality determines how people become members much like the states choose how they will hold elections. In both Unitarian Universalism and American politics participation is a problem.

I read a story that illustrates the Unitarian’s membership problem. People who are looking for the right church attend a Unitarian Universalist church. They are interested and sign what they think is the guest book, but later they end up becoming a member of a different church.

Months later they get a call from a member of the Unitarian Universalist church asking for a member’s pledge. Upon explaining that they are not a member they only signed the guest book the person who signed the guestbook realizes that they signed the membership book instead of the guest book. This would mean that they have been a member of the Unitarian Universalist faith for months and didn’t know it.  In this sense membership is a real problem for Unitarians because there are no specific guidelines. The lack of guidelines can create a disconnected community in a sense because the people of the church don’t know fellow members.

            I think most Unitarians would agree that they would like specific guidelines for membership. Most faiths have the criteria that a person should attend church regularly, work on ones own spiritual development, involve themselves in service to the community, and connect themselves to the broader Unitarian Universalist movement. I think these criteria are essential to the success of Unitarian Universalism. Attending service regularly will connect the community and make sure that everyone is familiar with the people of their same faith. Spiritual development is crucial because it proves that people are getting something positive out of their faith. Involving ones self in service shows the commitment to the faith, through the central Unitarian Universalist theme of making the world a more positive place. Connecting to Unitarian Universalist movement shows commitment and pride in spreading the faith and making others aware of it. This criterion establishes conceptions of the world that can be defined through Unitary Universalism.

Part V

Unitarian Universalism Today

             Throughout the term I have been trying to put my finger on something that unites the religions we studied. I have been searching for the common element that explains not just what all the elements of a religion are but something that explains why people choose to be religious and why religions are worth studying. I found a quote that illustrates not only Unitarian Universalists view of why we believe but also pertains to all religions. Henry David Thoreau once said, “I wish to learn what life has to teach, and not, when I come to die discover that I have not lived” (Ferver).           

            Thoreau illustrated the essential point of religion. People trying to make sense of the world they live in so they have no regrets when they die. Religion is a way to justify ones actions. It seems like a simple concept but it is present in all the religions we have studied. The Indians built mounds to honor the gods they did not know for sure existed. Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon to become more spiritual by finding a truer, more pious way to live than the puritans. The Bahai likewise preach that their religion is the most up to date and allows people to live the best, most spiritual life. Rastafari created a religion in order to explain the confusing poverty stricken world around them. They attempted to find their niche and exist in a world that didn’t make sense.

            Like wise Unitarians believe they have found the best way to live for them. Religion varies so widely especially today because people have such different goals in life. The idea of a universal religion like the Bahai preach is somewhat strange because there is no one belief that will fulfill all of humanity except that we all want to die with no regrets in a world that makes sense.

            Unitarians attempt to explain their world in terms of the eternal good of humans. They look at things in a positive light and attempt to live life to the fullest and take in as much as possible so they can die with no regrets. Unitarians are different than many religions but they share the concept of explaining the world around them through a lens that fits their unique situation. 

How to Approach the Book of Abraham

When Reading the Book of Abraham we must approach it with a very critical eye. There is a significant difference between reading what is written and accepting it and reading and questioning what the book says. It is widely known that the Book of Abraham bears little resemblance to what the actual Papyrus said in Egyptian but I don’t think that devalues what is said in the Book of Abraham. We can still read it and examine the points that don’t appear to be from 2000 BC and understand Mormonism better.

           One thing I think is interesting is that it still uses “and it came to pass” as a popular phrase because it makes the Book of Abraham sound exactly like the book of Mormon. This could just be a coincidence of Joseph Smith translating it into king James English. However I think it more likely suggests that Joseph Smith simply created the Book of Abraham and was not translating anything.

            Also the story of creation is very similar to the story in the Bible. The bible was not written in 2000 BC so I think it’s unlikely that the Book of Abraham was written around then. The story even includes Adam and Eve. I found this resemblance strange also because this was not the actual story of creation that the Egyptians believed in so it doest make sense that it was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Also the story of Genesis is essentially recreated when Abraham goes into Egypt he lies to the Egyptians with God's permission. 

            The Book of Abraham also showed a fair amount of bias toward the people of Egypt. The narration said that the people of Egypt would kill Abraham because his wife was so beautiful. I don’t think this is really a fair characterization of the Egyptians. It makes them seem like savages when they were actually very advanced people. This is more of a 19^th century belief that native people were inferior. It is a similar characterization that is present in the Book of Mormon when Smith is talking about the Native Americans. I don’t think that people in 2000 BC would have looked at the Egyptian civilization as being uncultured ignorant savages.

            While the book of Abraham may not have been written in 2000 BC it provides interesting insight into how that culture was viewed by society in the time of Joseph Smith. It’s also interesting and somewhat fighting that someone could read that and accept his bias as truth and assume that’s what Egypt was like in 2000 BC. I think we need to treat all religious text with great care and not necessarily accept what we read as truth right off the bat because it can be misleading. The book of Abraham provides an excellent example of something that seems normal enough on the surface but if we read it with a critical eye there are many unusual fallacies and inconsistencies.

I was very interested to see that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is working so hard to include minorities in their ad campaign. The Mormons have begun to picture adds like the one below to emphasize their ethnic diversity.

However I still see Mormonism as a church dominated by white ideals. In the Mormon community I visited in Arizona the entire community was white. If we look at Brigham Young University a school that is 98.5 percent Mormon only 14 percent of students are minorities(source) . While Columbia University’s undergrad programs are composed of 45.4 percent minorities (source). While this may not seem like a big deal I believe it’s a sign that clearly says there are still deep roots of ethnic distrust in Mormonism.

            Furthermore we can see white supremacy deeply rooted in the book of Mormon. For example the book of Mormon states that the people of Lamen lose their way, their skin gets darker and they become uncivilized. The people of Lamen clearly represent the Native Americans. Jesus is also characterized as coming down from the clouds in an immaculate white robe. These images strike me as having a clear racial message. There message does not seem so offensive as to suggest that whites are better than others, just that whites are spiritually educated. There is a very fine line to these racial characterizations but I definitely think they exist. 

            I find it very troubling that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is making an effort to promote racial diversity, yet they are not addressing the roots of racial tension in the book of Mormon. It almost feels fake to hear this incredible story of someone who has persevered in the face of poverty and the Church of Latter Day Saints is taking all the credit even though their religious text doesn’t stand for minorities. It makes me wonder if it’s possible to change the belief about minorities without addressing the source of the belief in the Book of Mormon?

            To me the Book of Mormon is contradictory to what the LDS add campaign is preaching. This underlying theme of racial tension should be dealt with. I don’t think that these adds will serve to eliminate the racial tension, in fact they only draw more attention to the fact that minorities are not a significant proportion of Mormons in the United States. 

A Dangerous Jesus

In the 19^th and 20^th century people were looking to explain their surroundings, and justify their right to America. As we have seen throughout this course Americans have taken some wild steps to justify the phrase “manifest destiny”. I see some pieces in the book of Mormon that appear ridiculous to me now but might have been accepted in the 19^th century and possibly the early 20^th century.

The first thing I find troubling is Joseph Smith saying that Jesus came to America after his resurrection. This is obviously ridiculous Jesus would have never been able to travel that far to visit the people of Nephi. However, it might have been a popular belief in the 19^th century. After all people had already attributed the Indian Mounds of Wisconsin to one of the lost tribes of Israel, and Jesus visiting the “new world” doesn’t seem that impossible if an entire lost tribe can get here.

            I find this thought very troubling almost a little bit freighting. Using Jesus and the lost tribes of Israel as a possible story to explain ones surroundings distracts Americans from the truth. The truth that Indians were here first and we should respect their territory. These stories give credit where credit is not due and they distract us from what actually happened in a way that harms others. The Indians suffered because Americans thought they could reintroduce spirituality and civility through assimilation. Americans claimed land that really wasn’t theirs through stories similar to this. 

            Another troubling thing that may have appealed to 19^th or 20^th century people is Jesus descending from the clouds in a white robe. This is a very captivating image, which also explains why the Nephi are such a special people. Jesus descended from the heavens to help them. In a way this ordains Americans as having a special blessing from Jesus and Europeans are just reintroducing a lost culture to the natives. It serves as an excuse to explain why Americans should “manifest destiny”. After all Jesus doesn’t just come down from the clouds for anybody.

            I don’t like to think of Jesus coming down from the clouds because the image of Jesus descending from the clouds goes against the founding principles of Christianity. Jesus was supposed to be a simple carpenter, not a drama queen (or king). This image goes against all conservative images of Jesus and in a way ruins what he stands for. I don’t like this image because it is not how I picture Jesus. I picture him as a wise man that people listen to because of his words, not because he can descend from the clouds like a UFO. I think this image ruins the modesty that should embody Jesus.

            These were the two details of Jesus that I found troubling one, because both of them seemed very impossible. But two because, I don’t think Jesus should be a symbol of ordaining a religion, while he may be a savior people should not look at him as something he isn’t to justify a wrongdoing. For example Americans can’t believe that since they were the chosen people of Jesus they can do whatever they want to other cultures and just explain that they are people of Jesus to and Natives simply need to return to his ways. 

Confines of Bahá'í

The Bahá'í pride themselves on being a very accepting religion. They have many aspects that I really like such as their attempt to create unity and peace. However I think when it comes to equality there are some aspects that lack depth. In some places the Bahá'í don’t promote unity very well.

A very important aspect of Bahá'í religion is unity. The oneness of God is a multifaceted aspect that the Bahá'í simplify almost too much. I think it is strange that the Bahá'í compound some religions which are polytheistic like Buddhism and Hinduism. I don’t understand how the Bahá'í can compound these polytheistic religions into a monotheistic religion. It seems like they are taking away the importance of Hinduism’s gods by not giving them a place in the Bahá'í religion.

            Because there is only one God it puts religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam above Hinduism and Buddhism. The Bahá'í faith is biased because it acknowledges Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as having a figurehead who is more important than the Gods in Buddhism and Hinduism. In a sense I see a contradiction because while they preach unity the Bahá'í don’t cohesively unify all the religions.

            In class we also talked about how there is not unity among the profits. While the Bahá'í do acknowledge profits from many religion not all profits are equal. The Bahá'í think that each profit came with a refined message from God. Krishna was the first known profit from the Hindu faith and Muhammad was the last profit drawn from an ancient religion. This means that Muhammud has the most valuable and relevant message besides The Bab and the Baha’u’llah who came after Muhammud. Again we see a reoccurring theme, not of unity but division, Hinduism is at the bottom of the totem pole while Christianity and Islam are close to the top.

Another easily foreseeable division in the Bahá'í faith is what to do when it’s time for the next profit. The Bahá'í procrastinated on developing a solution for this problem by saying he will not come for one thousand years. But assuming the Bahá'í are still around there could be a division between people who accept the word of the profit and people who do not. There is not an immediate solution to this problem, but it will not be relevant for a long time, regardless it is still important to mention because the Bahá'í faith is not complete unity as it first appeared.

Given these misconceptions I think the Bahá'í are still founded on positive ideals however like any religion, it’s not perfect and in some ways it does confine members of its faith. 

Compassion and the Bahá'í

            Karen Armstorong put together a very powerful video I think she is correct in saying that religions stray to far from each other, sometimes they choose to look at what divides them instead of the themes that unite all religions. Karen’s last idea of building a global community so that “People of all persuasions can live together in peace and harmony” is an idea that the Bahá'í share (3:17).

            The Bahá'í advocate the same principle Karen illustrated. The Bahá'í believe that humanity evolves in stages. They started in tribes and have now evolved into nation states; the baha’u’lla himself believed that the next step is to unify the world. Without unity there is no way to treat the problems of the world.

            The Bahá'í would agree that the world is sick. Environmental pollution, desertification, global warming, and the gap between rich and poor nations plague us as people. The Bahá'í believe that there is no way to deal with these problems except at a global level. Abdul’i- Bahá emphasizes “the family of mankind”, believing that all people need to come together and treat the tragedies of the world with the compassion similar to if they were happening to a close relative.

            Abdul’i- Bahá'í advocated a global consciousness in that “humanity needs to realize that they are independent (64). The Bahá'í believe that if this happens people will wake up to all the problems that are now inconceivable. Karen’s video also advocated a similar philosophy at 1:04 a man said “it doesn’t matter if they are Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic. It’s that they’re a fellow human being and they are suffering”.

            The Bahá'í believe that if we wake up to the concept that we are all connected, we can then connect on a spiritual level to promote peace and harmony. I admire the Bahá'í faith because they have steps society must follow in order to attain spiritual connection. It seems like Karen simply thinks that society will wake up to this fact by hearing her say it. She gave no guidance to her viewers other than look for compassion in religion, and tell stories about compassion. I think that is how Karen’s video and the Bahá'í faith are very different. The Bahá'í explain in detail how to be compassionate and how these problems will be addressed. The Bahá'í address all facets of society including economically, socially, and religiously while Karen only addresses one aspect, which is social, unity by putting aside differences in religion.