THE CHALLENGE FOR MODERN-DAYUNITARIANS AND UNIVERSALISTS

RECLAIMING THE SACRED AND THE HOLY

The Rev. Dr Ian Ellis-JonesBA, LLB (Syd), LLM, PhD (UTS), Dip Relig Stud (LCIS)

Senior Minister, Sydney Unitarian Church

An Address Delivered on 4 October 2009 at the Biennial Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Unitarian Universalist Association (ANZUUA) held at The Centre, Randwick, New South Wales

Greetings, one and all.

At the outset, I should make it clear - and I make no apology for this - that I will,

throughout this address, be using the “God” word a far bit. Of course, the word

“God”, if one uses it at all, means different things to different people. For some,

there is no objective referent at all to the word “God”, and I respect that position

as well. As Krishnamurti used to say, “The word is not the thing.” It’s the reality

behind the word that matters.

For me, the word “God” refers to the Spirit of Life - the very livingness of all life,

the essential oneness of all life, and the self-givingness of life to itself so as to

perpetuate itself. I also use the word “God” to refer to our innate potential

perfectibility, as well as to what I regard as being the sacred, the holy. As regards

the latter, I find that sense of the sacred or holy essentially in the enchantment of

everyday life ... in the ordinary as opposed to the extraordinary, and in the natural

world as opposed to some supposed supernatural world.

Sir Julian Huxley, in an essay entitled “The New Divinity” in his compilation book

Essays of a Humanist, had this to say about the word “divine”, after first

reminding his readers that “the term divine did not originally imply the existence

of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interpret [our] experiences of

this quality”:

For want of a better, I use the term divine, though this quality of divinity is not truly supernatural is not truly supernatural but transnatural -- it grows out of ordinary nature, but transcends it. The divine is what man finds worthy of adoration, that which compels his worship: and during history it evolves like everything else.”

Being what is referred to as a panentheist (God is the ground of all being, God is

in all things, and all things are in God; but all things are not God), I reject all

traditional notions of theism as well as the notion that there is a supernatural

order, level or dimension to life. I find the sacred or the holy in, as already

mentioned, the enchantment of everyday life, as well as in all of life, and

especially in those more enlightened souls who have blessed us with their

presence, teachings and example.

Now, even though I believe that there is only one order or level of reality, I truly

believe and submit that real religious or spiritual experience involves what Rudolf

Otto referred to as the “numinous”. In The Idea of the Holy Otto expressed his

opinion that, at the heart of religious or spiritual experience, there was this sense

of the numinous or the holy. The numinous experience was, according to Otto,

“inexpressible, ineffable". Otto saw the numinous or holy as a mysterium tremens

et fascinans, that is, a tremendous (read, awe- and fear-inspiring) and fascinating

mystery. The experience of the numinous or holy is, in the words of Otto,

a unique experience of confrontation with a power … “Wholly Other,” outside of normal experience and indescribable in its terms; terrifying, ranging from sheer demonic dread through awe to sublime majesty; and fascinating, with irresistible attraction, demanding unconditional allegiance.

Further, the experience, writes Otto,

grips or stirs the human mind. … The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its "profane," non-religious mood of everyday experience. It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strongest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink to an almost grisly horror and shuddering.

2

Otto then offers this definition of religion:

It is the positive response to this experience in thought (myth and theology) and action (cult and worship) that constitutes religion.

In other words, it is not so much the experience of the numinous or holy that

constitutes religion but rather our response to the experience. Regrettably, most

of those associated with liberal religion have lost this sense of the holy, this realm

of the sacred, or the divine. Unless we regain it, we have no future at all. Later

on, I will suggest how we can move forward and meet the challenge.

Before so doing, I should also mention that there is another type of religious or

spiritual experience that is equally real, and it lies almost entirely in the moral

realm. The ethicist Felix Adler, in his little book Life and Destiny (1913), writes:

The experience to which I refer is essentially moral experience. It may be described as a sense of subjection to imperious impulses which urge our finite nature toward infinite issues; a sense of propulsions which we can resist, but not disown; a sense of a power greater than ourselves, with which, nevertheless, in essence we are one; a sense, in times of moral stress, of channels opened by persistent effort, which let in a flood of rejuvenating energy and puts us in command of unsuspected moral resources; a sense, finally, of the complicity of our life with the life of others, of living in them in no merely metaphorical signification of the word; of unity with all spiritual being whatsoever.

Professor W. P. Montague, of Columbia University, refers in his book Belief

Unbound (1930) to religion as being

the acceptance neither of a primitive absurdity, nor of a sophisticated truism, but of a momentous possibility – the possibility, namely, that what is highest in spirit is also deepest in nature; that the ideal and the real are at least to some extent identified, not merely evanescently in our own lives, but enduringly in the universe itself

and also as

the faith that there is in nature an urge or power other than man himself that makes for the kind of thing that man regards as good.

Now, most of those here today who are members or regular, or even irregular,

attendees of a Unitarian or Universalist church, fellowship or society would

3

identify as Unitarians or Universalists. In some places, words “Unitarian” and

“Universalist” are conjoined, hence the expression “Unitarian Universalist”.

Some may not be sure what they are. All of you are welcome here today, for

Unitarianism, and Universalism are for all sincere and honest seekers after

spiritual truth who have love in their hearts and goodwill towards others.

I like both words - “Unitarian” and “Universalist” - because they both point to and

affirm a wholeness which is all-inclusive and all-embracing.

With its historical roots in early Judaism and Christianity, the religious philosophy

and movement known as Unitarianism came out of the Protestant Reformation

when many people began to claim the right to read and interpret the Bible for

themselves and the right to set their own conscience as a test of the teachings of

religion. The theological roots of Unitarianism may be found in 16th century

Europe, in particular, Hungary, Poland (where it flourished in that century) and

Romania, when some biblical scholars rejected the idea of the trinitarian

Christian God (“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”), claiming that a single God was

more consistent with the Bible. (“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.”

Dt 6:4.) Hence, the name Unitarian.

It was not so much the actual Doctrine of the Trinity that those who came to be

labeled Unitarians so much objected, but the Doctrine of the Deity (as opposed to

the essential Divinity) of Jesus Christ. Be that as it may, the word “Unitarian”

originally drew attention to an emphasis on the essential unity of God, rather than

God’s trinity or triplicity.

The Universalist denomination in the United States originated with John Murray

(1741-1815), a convert to Universalism as taught by the Methodist minister

James Relly (c.1722-1778) in England and who had been also greatly influenced

by the preaching of the Anglican minister George Whitefield (1714-1770) in

England. John Murray arrived in New Jersey in 1770. After preaching there and

in New York and New England, he settled in Gloucester, Massachusetts where in

4

1779 he became pastor of the first Universalist church in the United States. The

movement spread from there, with other ministers, including the Baptist minister

Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797) and Hosea Ballou (1771-1852), the latter an

itinerant New England preacher who directed Universalism toward his own

Unitarian theology, playing a very important role in the early history of America

Universalism. Susan Jacoby, in her book Freethinkers: A History of American

Secularism, writes:

The ministers who led this transformation were American originals, men of great passion and moderation, combining a philosophical commitment to natural rights with a pragmatic reliance on empirical knowledge.

In 1961 the American Unitarian Association and The Universalist Church of

America merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (known as the

UUA), which comprises over 1,000 congregations across the USA. The UUA

works closely with other similar organizations in many other areas of the world

many of which belong to the umbrella organization known as the International

Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU) which, as most of you would be

aware, is a world council bringing together Unitarians, Universalists and Unitarian

Universalists.

As regards Australia, and my own Church in particular, the Sydney congregation

was formed in 1850, two years before what is now known as the Melbourne

Unitarian Peace Memorial Church was established, and four years before a

meeting of the Unitarian Christians of South Australia was held in Adelaide. The

Rev. George H. Stanley was appointed the first minister of the Sydney

congregation in 1853. The first church was in Macquarie Street, Sydney. In the

1870s the congregation moved to a new church in Liverpool Street, but that

church was destroyed by fire in 1936. Another church was built in Francis Street,

which was opened in 1940. In 1970 that church was demolished and, on the

same site, a new multi-storey building was later erected (and since extensively

renovated and modernized), which is the Sydney church’s present location. If I

had more time, I would refer to the early history of Unitarianism in the other

States of Australia, so please forgive me for that.

5

There has never been any Universalist Church, in the strict North American

sense and tradition, in Australia. However, over the years, a few churches,

congregations and fellowships have from time to time, and right up to the

present, called themselves “Universalist” as opposed to “Unitarian”. Nothing

much turns on it.

Today, the word “Unitarian” in most places now points to our emphasis on the

essential unity of all life, and all persons, irrespective of whether or not we even

affirm any belief in a God in any traditional sense of the meaning of the word or

otherwise. As Unitarians, along with other religious liberals, we affirm that the

universe and all that exists within it are one interrelated and interdependent

whole, such that everything and everyone are rooted in the same universal, life-

creating ultimate reality.

The word “Universalist” originally affirmed the belief, held by most early

Christians, by the way - right up to the 6th century CE - that no soul is forever lost

from the all-conquering love of God. No soul - whether male or female, Buddhist

or Baptist, Mormon or Muslim, Jew, atheist, gay or straight. Thus, belief in any

specific Christian doctrine or dogma was not required.

Unitarianism and Universalism were very similar in theology except that most

Universalists, at least initially, still accepted the divinity of Jesus, a doctrine

ordinarily rejected by most Unitarians. Said Thomas Starr King (1824-1864),

who at various times was both a Universalist and a Unitarian minister:

The Universalists think God is too good to damn them forever; the Unitarians think they are too good to be damned forever.

What L. B. Fisher, a Universalist pastor who for many years was also the editor

of the Universalists’ denominational newsletter The Leader, once said about the

Universalists is equally applicable to the stance of most religious liberals:

Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this is that we do not stand at all, we move … We do not stand still, nor do we defend any immovable positions, theologically

6

speaking, and we are therefore harder to count or to form into imposing bodies. We grow and we march, as all living things forever must do. The main questions with Universalists are not where we stand but which way are we moving. Our main interest is to perceive what is true progress and to keep our movement in line with that.

Today, the word “Universalist” affirms that the most powerful force in the word –

indeed, in the whole universe – is love, strange as it may seem. That love, which

is the fundamental underlying universal principle of all religion, is infinite,

adorable, unchangeable, but entirely incomprehensible. Universalism also affirms

that not only is there a universality of spiritual principles and spiritual experience

underlying most, if not all, religions (sensibly interpreted, of course, and stripped

of outmoded accretions and superstitions) which cannot be claimed as the

exclusive possession of any one religion, but, more importantly, there is a

universality in values that are quite independent of any or all religion. They are

the universal values of honesty, integrity, justice, grace, forgiveness and

compassion … also, that truth, properly understood, transcends national, cultural,

racial, even faith boundaries.

Both Unitarianism and Universalism affirm that the Universe is the Body of God,

and therefore is, or at least ought to be, of ultimate and paramount concern to all

of us. Now, whichever one or other, or both, or neither of the two labels we chose

to identify ourselves with is entirely up to each one of us, consistent with our

longstanding heritage of religious freedom and tolerance.

Clarence Russell Skinner (1881-1949) was the most influential Universalist

minister of his generation. He wrote a wonderful book entitled The Social

Implications of Universalism (1915). What he said about Universalism applies

equally to Unitarianism. Skinner wrote that modern religion must sanctify the

world. Our dominant motive and driving force must be, not to escape from earthly

existence into some supposed world above and beyond this earthly existence of

ours, but to make earthly existence as abundant and happy as it can be made,

notwithstanding all of the terrible things that happen in this world on a daily basis.

No matter how broken we may be, we can be restored to fullness of life. That is

very much the Universalist part of our heritage.

7

So, we have this wonderful word Unitarianism, which affirms the unity - that is,

the essential oneness - of all life, all persons, and all things. As I have said so

often in this Church, the One becomes the many so that the many may know

themselves to be one. Then, we have the wonderful word Universalism, which

affirms and promotes the universal restitution or restoration of all things and

people – that is, all things and people will eventually be restored to God, or their

Source, or Original Essence. This is referred to in the Bible, in Acts 3:21, as the

“restitution of all things”, or the “restoration of all” (apokatastasis panton). In

Greek astronomical and philosophical literature apokatastasis refers to the actual

re-establishment of the order of the universe. By what means? Another Big Bang

or a series of Big Bangs? Who knows for sure? I am also reminded of what we

have learned from quantum mechanics, namely, that the universe is one,

indivisible and conscious entity of which the observer is an essential part. So, for

the adjustment of all things, we give thanks.

As Unitarians, Universalists, or Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many

sources. Today, I want to draw primarily, but not exclusively, from the Judeo-

Christian tradition, and the Bible, sensibly and liberally interpreted. In fact, I draw

from a number of different traditions and sources, and that is why I am a

Unitarian.

Now, in the 25th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, in the New Testament of the

Christian Scriptures, we meet what has been called the “Anonymous Christ”, and

we read that the spirit or personality of Jesus - the friend of sinners, the

champion of the poor, and the healer of the sick - can be experienced even today

as a living presence, for he comes to us, and visits us, in our home and in our

community. We encounter this spirit or personality of Jesus in our interactions

with others. Everyone we meet, everyone we serve, is in the image of Jesus, a

personification of the Divine. Roman Catholics understand this so much better

than Protestants. Yes, the Anonymous Christ, as it is known, comes to us in so

many ways, and we fail to recognize that Jesus’ so-called incarnation continues

8

all the time, in us and in other people. We read about the Anonymous Christ in

Matthew 25:34-40:

Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?”

The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Jesus’ followers were originally known as “people of the way”. Jesus, in his vision

of the Anonymous Christ, offers us a vision and a challenge. The call to follow is

not a call to worship Jesus. He never sought nor wanted that. No, the Way of

Jesus is a call to follow Jesus’ path, to live as he lived, and to serve others as he

did.

Unitarianism and Universalism offer what I believe is true Christianity, even if we

choose not to identify our particular religion, philosophy, church, fellowship or

society as being a Christian one, or ourselves as Christians. True it is - and a

good thing too, in my respectful opinion - that Unitarianism or Unitarian

Universalism is best described as a post-Christian religion whose members

comprise some liberal Christians, humanists, agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, neo-

pagans, and so on … and so may it be. Yes, let us rejoice heartily in our

diversity. I do. But, as I see it, the Unitarian (or Universalist) Church is still a

Christian Church in one very important sense, and it is this. As I see it,

Christianity is the true religion of Jesus – the religion that Jesus taught, and by

which Jesus himself lived and died. Jesus called it the “gospel of God”, and told

us that the Kingdom of God was within us (see Lk 17:21).

9

Now, this is my point. Many Buddhists I know, even many atheists and other

secularists, live lives that are so much more nobly and deeply and closely

moulded after that of Jesus than those fundamentalist and evangelical Christians

who claim, ever so proudly, to have been washed in the saving Blood of the

Lamb – a perverse and pernicious corruption and distortion of true Christianity if

ever there was one – and who have forsaken the true human Jesus of the

Gospels (who never used any language of sacrifice, bloodshed, propitiation or

expiation) and who have substituted for him a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics

and pagan philosophy. I repeat, many people, who would not identify as

Christians, are real followers of the way of Jesus. There is a wonderful hymn,

written by Marguerite Pollard, in The New St Alban Hymnal, produced by the

Liberal Catholic Church in Australia, which contains this wonderful verse:

And there are some who love him well,yet know not it is he they love;he tends the holy fire withinand draws them to the heights above.

Jesus’ purported utterance, “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30), must be seen

in its total context. Indeed, on the contrary, Jesus spoke of the Father, who sent

him, as God, and as the only God: see, eg, Jn 17:3 (“This is life eternal, that they

might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”).

Jesus, after having said, “I and my Father are one,” gave his disciples distinctly

to understand that he did not mean one substance, equal in power and glory, but

one only in affection and design, as clearly appears from the prayer he offers to

his Father in their behalf - “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,

and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (Jn 17:21). Jesus was saying,

“The father is in me, and I am in the father”, which is a wonderfully panentheistic

and Unitarian view of God. (Similarly, Jesus is also reported to have said, “I am

in my Father: and you in me, and I in you” (Jn 14;20).)

As for Jesus’ reported utterance, “no one comes to the father except by me” (Jn

14:6), my view is the same as that of the great Methodist preacher Dr Leslie

Weatherhead, which is also that of the Jesus Seminar – I don’t believe that Jesus

10

ever said that. (Just like today’s Jesus Seminar, Thomas Jefferson, working in

the White House in 1804, embarked on the task of putting the blue pencil through

the Gospels in order to extract the authentic message of Jesus. I’m not afraid to

do the same thing.)

Now, even if Jesus did say, “no one comes to the father except by me”, I am sure

he was referring to his way of life, his teaching, nothing more than that. As you

know, there appear to be a sizable number of Christians who, when reading this

verse, interpret it mean that Jesus is God and that no one can get to heaven

except if they worship Jesus and accept him as their Saviour and Lord. The

popular perception that this verse claims that Jesus requires our worship in order

for us to receive salvation is not the intended meaning of this verse. However, in

order for us to recognize this fact it is necessary to study its context. If we were to

back up a little and read from the beginning of John 14, we find that just before

Jesus spoke these words, he said:

In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you. (Jn 14:2.)

The above statement is quite clear. This is what Jesus is saying here. He said

that in God's mansion there are "many" rooms. Jesus purports to guide to only

one of them. The countless other rooms were apparently reserved for other tribes

and nations if they would obey their respective messengers. However, Jesus was

telling his followers that they need not worry themselves about the other rooms.

Anyone from among his people who wished to enter into the room which was

reserved for them could only do so if they followed Jesus and obeyed his

command. So Jesus confirmed that he was going to prepare "a" mansion and not

"all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Further, the verse clearly states that

Jesus was the "way" to a mansion. He did not say that he is the "destination"

which would be the case if he were God. This is indeed confirmed in John 10:9

where Jesus tells us that he is the “door" to the “pasture." In other words, he is

the "prophet" who guides his people to "heaven" (see also Jn 12:44). How

wonderfully Universalist! Finally, remember:

11

Not every one that says to me (Jesus), 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven. (Mt 7:21)

Now, what has happened to Unitarianism and Universalism worldwide, and

especially in the United States of America, but also, I fear, in some parts of

Australia. Now, as regards Unitarian Universalism itself, as practised under the

auspices of the UUA, some persons associated with that movement, including

some Unitarian Universalist ministers themselves, do not see their movement as

a religion per se. For example, Unitarian Universalist minister Beverley Boke, in

a sermon entitled “This Cherished Chosen Faith” delivered at the First Universalist

Society, in Hartland, Vermont, on 12 January 2003, said:

Is Unitarian Universalism a religion? Originally it was - rather they [ie the Unitarians and the Universalists] were. We come from two distinct and different root stalks.  Grafted onto the Mosaic faiths  - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - are branches of many denominations. Judaism has many. Islam has many. And Christianity has many - many more than either Judaism or Islam.

Two of those branches were Universalism and Unitarianism. In their infancy they could be summarized like this: Universalists disagreed with Christians who said some people would go to Heaven and some to Hell when they died. Universalists believed that all people would be saved. They believed that through the atonement of Jesus all sins could be forgiven. They did not believe that you'd go straight to Heaven if you had a lot to answer for. Universalists were smarter than that. But they did believe that you would, ultimately, be saved. God, they believed, was too good to send his children into everlasting torment.

Unitarians believed that God had but one aspect, one nature. They disagreed with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus was a human being sent by God to teach human beings about love. Jesus showed us how to live. Anyone could attain the level of goodness Jesus had attained. That's why God sent Jesus to dwell among men and women, so that he would provide the model for our conduct. Human beings, they believed, were too good for God to send into everlasting torment.

In [1961], the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Not, mind you, the Unitarian Universalist Church of America. Not church, at all.  And since that time the traditional language of church has struggled to stay alive in this denomination, this association. Sin... faith... religion... church... prayer... God... salvation, saved!  All these words and others

12

were so laden with what people didn't believe in that we stopped using them.

Our own churches and fellowships must offer much more than just a “social-

political-ethical system” and some form of tired old secular humanism with a little

added oomph and emption. Dr Norman Vincent Peale wrote in one of his many

books that people want more than just the “stone of social action”, they want -

please forgive me - the “bread of life”. We are verging perilously close to

becoming a totally innocuous and ineffectual influence in Australian and New

Zealand life. If Unitarianism, Universalism, Unitarian Universalism, or whatever

you want to call it, ceases to be a religion in the true sense of the word, or loses

its primary spiritual thrust, and simply becomes a social or political movement for

change, as it appears to have become in some places, both here and abroad,

then we have no right to call ourselves religious or even spiritual.

I am always bemused, and a little saddened, when I hear a person say, “I’m

spiritual, but not religious,” as if religion and spiritually were diametrically

opposed. Religion is simply organised spirituality. Spirituality refers to that

domain concerned with the largeness of life where there is communal celebration

of some Power, Presence, Being or Principle other than self where, in the words

of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, “mind, personality, purpose, ideals, values and

meanings dwell”.

Yes, I deeply fear at times that we have lost almost all sense of the sacred, the

holy, the numinous, and that is an awful tragedy, indeed it is a scandalous state

of affairs.

Now, whether we identity as Unitarians or Universalists, or Unitarian

Universalists, or something else (for example, Buddhists or Humanists), and

irrespective of whether or not we believe in the existence of God (however

defined), what Jesus referred to as the Kingdom of God, and its establishment

here on earth, should, I respectfully submit to all of you today, be a matter of

paramount importance to all of us ... right now. Indeed, I truly believe that what

13

Jesus referred to as the Kingdom of God (or the Kingdom of Heaven), or what

the writer of John’s Gospel referred to as “eternal life”, is, and can rightly be

referred to as, the “Realm of the Sacred” or the “Beloved Community”.

The “Beloved Community”. I like those words, and some of you may prefer them

to the more Biblical expressions “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven”. Dr

Martin Luther King Jr used that expression a lot in his speeches and writings. I

may be wrong on this, but I think the earliest mention of the expression “Beloved

Community” was from the American objective idealist philosopher Josiah Royce

(1855-1916), whose main writings such as The Religious Aspects of Philosophy,

The World and the Individual and The Problem of Christianity were published

before World War I. Royce also used the words “universal community” to refer to

the same reality. In The Problem of Christianity (1913) Royce stated:

Since the office of religion is to aim towards the creation on earth of the Beloved Community, the future task of religion is the task of inventing and applying arts which shall win all over to unity and which shall overcome their original hatefulness by the gracious love, not merely of individuality but of communities. Judge every social device, every proposed reform, every national and every local enterprise by one test. Does this help towards the coming of the universal community?

Please understand me. I am not advocating a return to some form of Unitarian

Christianity, although liberal Christians should always be made welcome in our

churches and fellowships along with all others who have love in their hearts. All

that I am advocating is that unless we embrace and promulgate a positive, life-

affirming, transformative religion with reason based on a spirituality without

superstition that meets the particular needs of modern day individuals as well as

Australian society at large, then we will cease to exist in next to no time. Indeed, I

would submit that we would deserve such a fate.

Now, if our only or primary concern be, say, Amnesty International, Greenpeace,

global warming, the plight of refugees, socio-economic reform or whatever -

admirable organizations and causes they may be – then, in my respectful

opinion, we ought to devote all of our time and effort to such groups. Unitarianism

14

is, or ought to be, much more than that. It is for those who wish to concern

themselves with faith-based ideas, beliefs, practices and activities directed

towards a celebration of that which is perceived to be not only ultimate but also

divine, holy or sacred. The Kingdom of God (irrespective of whether or not we

choose to use that particular expression, or even believe in God whether in a

traditional sense or otherwise), or the Realm of the Sacred, is, or ought to be, an

opportunity for deep self-reflection, self-abandonment, self-surrender and self-

sacrifice … and for developing and experiencing a sense of the numinous.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The true message of all religion, sensibly interpreted,

is that it is better to give than to receive, and to love rather than hate, that getting

rich at the expense of others is evil, that oppressing, subjugating, exploiting and

manipulating others is evil, that destroying the planet and all that is sacred and

holy is evil, and that helping others (especially those who are marginalized and

otherwise unable to help themselves), working for justice and to end oppression,

and promoting harmony, peace and goodwill is good. However, true religion or

spirituality is also about the birth and the ongoing rebirth, that is, the bringing into

daily conscious existence the Kingdom of God - the Realm of the Sacred, or the

Beloved Community - which is something fundamentally spiritual (that is, non-

materialistic) in nature, even though its various manifestations are entirely

practical, physical and earthly. We are here to build this kingdom, and it is in the

doing, rather than the questioning, that the truth reveals itself, and the kingdom is

made manifest ... a kingdom “not of this word” (Jn 18:36). The religion of most

Australian, and I dare say, New Zealanders as well, is materialism, and

consumerism, and if religions are to serve any purpose at all they must, in the

words of the Rev. Cathal Courtney, a Unitarian minister in Glasgow and

Aberdeen, and author of the wonderful book Towards Beloved Community, be

“harbingers of non-materialism”.

Courtney, in an article entitled “Move ‘Towards Beloved Community’” and

published in the October 20, 2007 edition of The Inquirer, wrote:

15

The great weakness of liberal religion is a fear of being illiberal that frequently leads to the avoidance of what we might call the substantial questions. Afraid that the ‘secularised’ mass will feel further alienated by the use of religious language, the liberal religionist frequently thinks that by removing religious language from their vocabulary they will make what they represent more appealing. The result is a meaningless free-for-all, an anchorless voyage requiring no commitment or dedication, an à la carte spirituality that requires nothing from nobody because nothing is important, a non-conformity for non-conformity’s sake, an abdication of the call to search deeply for the meaning of our lives, even if that meaning is meaningless by its very nature. The clear benefit of such religion is that it creates a place of comfort in a world that knows only too well how to reject. The disadvantage, however, is that we reduce religion to the lowest common denominator in order to avoid offence.

Forget “end times” theories. Let us make this Beloved Community both a present

and a future reality … until that day on which there will be no sunset and no

dawning, yes, that day of universal restitution and restoration of all things and

people, when all things and people will eventually be restored to their Source and

Original Essence. The age in which we live has been variously described

philosophically and ecclesiastically as being Post-Denominationalist, Post-

Modernist and Post-Christian, among other things, and there is truth in all of that.

Theodore Parker (1810-1860), the great American Unitarian minister, said this:

The church that is to lead this century [Parker was talking about the 19th

century] will not be a church creeping on all fours, mewling and whining, its face turned down, its eyes turned back. It must be full of the brave spirit of the day, keeping also the good of times past.

It demands, as never before, freedom for itself, usefulness in its institutions, truth in its teachings, and beauty in its deeds….

Let us have a church for the whole person: truth for the mind, good works for the hands, love for the heart; and for the soul, that aspiring after perfection, that unfaltering faith in God which, like lightening in the clouds, shines brightest when elsewhere it is most dark.

16