Why Unitarianism is on a Roll

The prophet Isaiah was rather tart about the human tendency to fulfill religious requirements in the absence of inner conviction and in the studied disregard of the one who commanded the requirements in the first place:

 וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי

 
יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו

וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי

 

וְלִבֹּו רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי

וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי

מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה

 

לָכֵן הִנְנִי יוֹסִף

לְהַפְלִיא אֶת־הָעָם־הַזֶּה

הַפְלֵא וָפֶלֶא

 

וְאָבְדָה חָכְמַת חֲכָמָיו

וּבִינַת נְבֹנָיו תִּסְתַּתָּר

The Lord said:
 

Because this people approached me with its mouth,

and honored me with its lips,
 

but its heart was far from me,

and its fear of me became

a taught human commandment,
 

Yet again I am about to

shock and awe this people,

shock and awe,
 

and the wisdom of the wise will vanish,

the prudence of the prudent will be put away.

Isa 29:13-14

Approach me with distraction, take the fear and spontaneity out of worship of me, says the Lord, and don’t you worry. I will get your attention again. I will put my fear back into you. Your sage prudence will be of no use to you then.

The tendency of religion to turn into its opposite whereby it shields us from falling into the hands of the living God has always been strong. That, I think, is Unitarianism in a nutshell.

How does Unitarianism accomplish this? The preferred method of neutering religion is known as syncretism. Loosely translated, that means mixing and matching heterogeneous theology and practice into a brave new combobulation. The effect is a bland broth in which everything is relativized.

Kevin Wilson points out that some secular humanists openly advocate practicing religion without believing in it. He is not happy with people who pick and choose from the ritual repertoire of the religions of the world, as if a giant smorgasbord were spread out before them, and create a mishmash of their own without really believing in any of it.

I agree. My thoughts naturally wander to the many Unitarian friends that I have. In some ways that’s what Unitarianism is: an organized form of secular humanism.

But it might also be pointed out that we are all Unitarians now. That is, the à la carte approach to religious faith and practice is rampant everywhere. The commandments I like I will keep; the others, I will not. Is it fun? Does it move me? Then I do it. If not, if I don’t feel like it, if it interferes with the pursuit of happiness as I define it with the help of TV commercials and Playboy magazine  - the articles, I mean [ed.: get with it, man, it’s Maxim nowadays] - I won’t.

I don’t think it is an accident that Unitarianism is growing fast. They tap into a cultural trend.

I have often been asked as a pastor to lead a seder for Christians. I have consistently refused. It is always a joy for me to be invited for seder among Jewish friends. That’s one thing. A seder may include non-Jews, but I don’t see how it can be a seder if it is not led by Jews who invite whomever they please.

James Bradford Pate also posts on this, and links to this essay by Jon Levenson. The essay really takes aim at Unitarianism. Stands to reason. But I think Levenson is being a bit of a sourpuss for pooh-poohing the practice of inviting Gentiles to a seder. Look at it from the point of view of a shaygetz! In the church I serve, before I came, a Jewish family once came and put on a seder for a hundred people. Okay, that may be out of hand, but something is happening here that Jews might not want to dismiss completely.

It is tempting to look at the syncretism of secular humanists and Christian-led seders as examples of  copyright infringement. But the metaphor has its limits. Historically speaking, cases of borrowing and adaptation back and forth of specific elements between Judaism and Christianity and paganism in antiquity are documentable. Given that Judaism and Christianity are sister traditions, borrowing and adaptation back and forth of specific elements today is not only possible, but to be expected. In my next post, I will illustrate.

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

I accept that syncretism is one way in which religion has been neutered so that it "it shields us from falling into the hands of the living God". But it seems to me that there is an alternative way which may well still be stronger at least in the USA: turning religion into dry orthodoxy and traditionalism, closely related to fundamentalism.

[stephen.peltz]

Modernity has stripped people of certainty when it comes to God. Unitarianism may be growing because it speaks to the contemporary spirit. When Unitarians read scriptures from a variety of religions, they are embracing the fact that there are many views on offer, and acknowledging that they don't know for certain which one is correct.

That's one extreme. The opposite extreme is the mindset that says we're certain about all of it: every word of every text happened just as it says, understood literally. That approach may have a superficial appeal (people do long for certainty about such important issues!), but ultimately I think people see through it and become disillusioned.

I think preachers and teachers need to accept the lack of certainty and reassure people that faith doesn't require us to have absolute answers to every question. Second, preachers need to encourage people to trust God anyway. Encourage them to stake their lives on the Gospel, despite the inevitable uncertainty about much of the secondary and tertiary material in the biblical texts.

What I see in a lot of mainline churches in Canada (not just Unitarianism) is that the preacher him-/herself doesn't know what to believe. The scholars have thrown everything up for grabs. The clergy are disoriented and have not reached a new, personal faith orientation.

The preacher has to get their first, before he or she can lead others into that place of trust and allegiance.

[James McGrath]

I have some good friends who are Unitarians, and I don't think they would be at all offended by my sharing a definition of a Unitarian that another friend of mine offered (or even disagree with it). His definition is that "A Unitarian is someone who believes in at most one God". :)

I also like the scene in the Simpsons when Bart is playing the "convert the heathen" video game at the Flanders' home, and when he says "Got him!" at one point, the response is, "No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian"!

[Bob MacDonald]

Not so sure that shock and awe is such a good allusion - but I do think the wisdom of the elders is hidden in some places. (Or was that intelligence).

As for the weakness of knowledge - this too is hard to judge - and a single name will not do as a target. I am a one-trick pony - you may have noticed. Delight in God - whatever happens - that one is wonderful and does wonders that are unspeakable and has displayed his love in a wonder counsellor without restraint.

Admittedly I would be silenced out of court in many non-Trinitarian conventions - but I get ignored by some in the Trinitarian congregations too.

As one who accepts the outcast I am not welcome in many places, says the Lord. (And as for me, I said, I don't go some places either - but do I look for a place of acceptance? I think I would like the idea. Auden has appropriate words: Wear you tribulation like a rose and watch out for those trumpets that unguarded children blow about the fortress of their inner foe.)