A lot of people will tell you that the problem with Unitarian Universalism is that is has no center and no core of belief. In my non-religious-professional opinion, that's bullshit. But Katy-the-Wise [whom CC identifies as her favorite UU minister] says it better than I do when she writes of the center of our faith:Immediately my mind went to the episode of The Monastery in which participant Nick Buxton, when prodded by one of the monks to plant his flag and state his position on basic theological issues such as the existence of God, says something like the following: "When someone asks me, 'Do you believe in God?' I ask them to define what they mean by 'you,' 'believe,' and 'God.'" Similarly, when someone asks what UUs do/ must/ can/ may believe, the only correct response may be to ask for clarification regarding the question itself.
"That unique gift is as it has always been a commitment to freedom of belief, of thought and of conscience. Those who confuse freedom with license misunderstand that to mean that Unitarian Universalists can believe anything at all. On the contrary, true freedom means that we are responsible for our own beliefs rather than subject to an outside authority, which puts the burden of truth directly on the individual. The bottom line is that you cannot believe that for which you have no evidence in experience or that you have not examined carefully and tested with integrity. At first people think it is very easy to practice a religion that doesn't tell you what to believe or what to think or what to do. Soon they find that taking the responsibility that freedom requires is a spiritual practice that takes all our strength and courage."
So let's do a little informal unpacking of the claim Katy-the-Wise finds objectionable: "UUs can believe anything at all," sometimes worded as, ""UUs can believe anything they want to."
First, what does "can" mean? It obviously does not mean "are able" since any individual UU has certain things which s/he is unable to believe. For many among us, that inability is a major part of what brought them to us instead of to the Methodists - sometimes after spending decades trying with all their might to believe the thing they were told they must believe. I, for example, find it impossible to believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, authoritative in all areas of life and practice. I cannot believe that part of "anything at all" in any sense of the word "believe." It would be sheer nonsense to say that one can believe what they find impossible to believe.
So let's assume that "can" means "may." As in, we UUs don't have a creed and we don't have belief police approving some beliefs and outlawing other beliefs; therefore, you may believe anything at all. To the extent this means our beliefs are derived individually rather than handed down from Boston (and this is at least sometimes the intention behind the assertion that we can believe anything), this is a correct understanding of UU belief.
But "anything at all" is pretty damn broad. Though we don't have a creed that says otherwise, the ethos of the denomination would not support certain beliefs as acceptable. You believe that women are morally superior to men? Sorry, that belief is incompatible with UUism. You believe that there is only one way to lead a meaningful and spiritual life? Sorry, that belief is incompatible with UUism. You believe that gays are going to burn in hell? Sorry, that belief is incompatible with UUism. Clearly, though UUs qua humans may indeed believe any of these things, UUs qua UUs may not simply believe anything. Some things are indeed beyond the pale.
But what does "believe" mean? In common American religious parlance, "believe" frequently refers to the intellectual conviction of the factual or symbolic truth of a specific theological assertion. For many Americans it matters more what is in your head than what you do in the world. That is one kind of belief. UUs qua UUs do not share that kind of belief. We may and do believe "anything at all," in the sense of not accepting that the content of our mental processes is more important than our actions in the world.
But what if we take "believe" to mean a relinquishing of decision-making regarding theological issues to some authorized person or body, as may be meant when people in certain traditions simply follow the instruction of those with ecclesiastical authority? If that is the meaning of "believe," then UUs may not, perhaps must not, believe anything at all. That is, that sort of belief of anything is incompatible with UUism. Not only can't we believe "anything at all," we must not.
If we take "believe" to refer to a standing in solidarity with a community by means of a verbal formulation that serves as a grounding for life in common, as when many Christian churches recite their creed together, saying "I believe..." whether or not they intellectually accept the factual or symbolic truth of the content of the creed's assertions, UUs, as members of a non-creedal faith, simply do not have the option of believing this way. UUs qua UUs may not believe anything this way because we cannot.
And that alternate wording that we "can" "believe" "anything we want to"? Depends which "believe" you choose. It would be patent nonsense to say you can choose what you believe when belief is "intellectual conviction of the factual or symbolic truth of a theological assertion." Neither UUs nor anyone else can believe anything they want to in that definition of believe. Either one is convinced or one is not. It is not a choice. You can, perhaps, want to believe whatever you want to want to believe, but you can believe only what you actually believe, not what you want to believe. And the other two forms of belief we sketched out above aren't UU options.
So unless we use additional optional meanings for the word "believe," it is absolutely false that UUs can believe anything they want to, and UUs qua UUs may, cannot, may not, AND must not believe anything at all.
The problem for me, though, with Katy-the-Wise's statement on UUs and freedom of belief is two-fold:
- She writes, " ...true freedom means that we are responsible for our own beliefs rather than subject to an outside authority, which puts the burden of truth directly on the individual." Sounds good. I might even phrase it that way myself, but if we are only responsible FOR and not responsible TO (which I would agree with), what difference does this make? Without being responsible to something, our responsibility boils down to one thing: not blaming something outside ourselves for what we have done. There is no burden for truth here beyond the simple fact that if you get something wrong, there's no one to blame. Is the "free and responsible search for meaning" anything more than, "Quit your bellyaching!"?
- She writes, "The bottom line is that you cannot believe that for which you have no evidence in experience or that you have not examined carefully and tested with integrity." But that simply isn't so. People can and do believe things without evidence or testing. And UUs are no different on this score. How many UUs believe in reincarnation or some other afterlife? Have they any evidence in experience? Have they tested these beliefs with integrity? If you can answer yes to either of these questions, then the whole idea of "evidence in experience" and "testing with integrity" is meaningless. Is their belief in these things anti-UU because of the lack of evidence and testing? Absolutely not.
- if we believe something that does not serve us well or which leads us to harm others, no one else is to blame;
- certain beliefs are incompatible with the whole, though uncodified, UU ethos;
- among beliefs that are not incompatible with UUism, there is freedom;
- reason, experience, and testing are advisable tools to use in evaluating beliefs;
- many beliefs do not submit to any of these tools for evaluation;
- any time you use the word "believe" or "belief" * without defining it ad nauseum, you will be misunderstood - you probably will be even after the best of explanations;
- whatever your definitions are, they are yours and do not apply to what other people have to say, so it is still necessary to get them to explain their comments or questions or else you run a high risk of misunderstanding them.
* (or "God" or "spiritual" or any number of other key terms)
And now, I believe it is nearing the new year, time to pop a cork and say goodbye to father time and get ready to greet the baby.






