Thinking for Ourselves

The Unitarian free-thinking independent-minded way of approaching religion and belief is poles apart from accepting a creed because someone higher up the religious hierarchy tells us to. We are free-thinkers, who place a very high value on personal integrity – on finding your own way to the best that you know.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have what I would call absolutist or fundamentalist faiths, those who demand that their believers accept the whole faith package without question, or be condemned as unbelievers and heretics. Conforming to such a faith is easy, so long as you don’t mind your thoughts and actions being dictated by someone else. In effect, you are accepting and measuring yourself against someone else’s definition of integrity. You are told what to do and how to act and think, and so long as you do that, your place among the saved will be assured.

No, sorry, can’t be doing with it.  And yet, such faiths have a far larger following than Unitarianism. Is this because most people would rather not think for themselves, that they would rather be told how they should react in any given situation, rather than working it out for themselves? I think it must be. Because with freedom comes responsibility, and that can be scarey.

For sure, there are many shades of integrity vs. conformity along the way. Between the endless questioning of free thinkers and the blind following of ultra conformist faiths, there are very many believers, who (for example) quite happily chant the creed in church on a Sunday morning, but whose personal lives are lived out in varying degrees of conformity with it. 

And within the “stricter” faiths, such as Catholicism and Islam, there are surely many independent thinkers who live their lives and their faiths with integrity. I’m certainly not saying that we Unitarians and Quakers and other free thinkers have a monopoly on integrity – far from it. But our habit of questioning our beliefs and our actions and not just doing something because the other person says so should surely make behaving with integrity that much easier. 

Walking the Talk

The words of Edgar Guest’s creed “To have no secret place wherein / I stoop unseen to shame and sin; / To be the same when I’m alone / As when my every deed is known / To be without pretence and sham / Exactly what men think I am” go to the heart of what I believe integrity is – to be honest, straight and honourable in all our dealings and doings, whether or not anybody knows about it. The thing that matters is that we know we have done the right thing for the right reason.

But there is more to it than that. I used to be a librarian, so the first thing I do when I want to find out what something means is to turn to a reference book, in this case The Concise Oxford Dictionary. The dictionary defines integrity as “wholeness, entirety, soundness, uprightness, honesty”. It means adopting a whole heart and soul approach to our lives, so that we do not detract from our spiritual wholeness by any mean action or thought. This is a lot harder than it sounds – most people (and I certainly include me in this) often fall short of this ideal, and compromise our standards of what we know to be right.

I think that integrity means more than this, however. To me, the most important part of that definition is “wholeness”. For example, you can talk about a machine or building having ‘structural integrity’, which means that all the parts of it fit together in the right way and work together. Going back to people, it means striving towards the best we know, acting consistently according to what we believe is right, and not allowing ourselves to deviate from this standard. In this way, our whole selves, body, mind and soul, can have integrity and wholeness.

Acting with integrity also involves thinking for yourself. Abraham Lincoln famously said: “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. / I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to the light I have.” This implies making a judgement about what you believe to be right and true, and then sticking to it, no matter what anybody else thinks. Personal integrity is not cheap – it means refusing to compromise when you are told to do something what you believe in your heart is wrong. It means following your principles, at whatever personal cost. It means putting what you know to be right above what you would like to happen.

Being part of a silent majority is the easy way out in our society. It means that you keep your opinions to yourself, or grumble to your friends, but don’t speak up or act if you believe that something is wrong. I am uneasily aware that I do much less than I should to right the perceived wrongs of the world: I am a member of Amnesty International, but I do not write letters or take part in protests, as members are urged to do. I am a member of Friends of the Earth, yet I do not consistently use green products or make every effort to save energy. In other words, in those areas which I fall short of the standards I perceive to be right, I lack personal integrity.

You might say “Oh, don’t be so hard on yourself. You don’t do so badly. You do your best.” But do I? Does anyone? If we truly believe that acting with integrity is of paramount importance, it ought to apply to every area of our lives, not just when it’s easy or convenient to do so.

The Journey Towards Authenticity

I have always loved the bit in the original Bridget Jones film when everything has gone wrong at her dinner party - her soup was contaminated by blue string, and her orange sauce turned into marmalade - but her friends toast her health "To Bridget, who we love, just the way you are."

 To be loved "just the way you are" is the most precious gift. And to live as your authentic self is the richest, most rewarding, and possibly most difficult, way to live. The theme of this year's Hucklow Summer School was "The Authentic Self: Discovering the Real You" and it was a good, deep, stretching week.

This becoming who you really are is a long process, full of risk and danger. But also full of light and joy. It is something which tends to happen more as we approach middle-age, than earlier on in our lives, unless we are lucky. In the first half of life, we tend to be preoccupied with growing up, finding our place in the world, establishing a career and a family, or close group of friends, and then settling into that unique niche, which we have carved out for ourselves.

And that is good. I'm not saying for a moment that this first half of life work is not necessary - it is vital. By the time we are approaching middle age, most of us will have a particular position in the world, a particular identity, particular roles, whether in the workplace or outside, and will be identified by particular labels. My principle labels and roles as I started this inward journey were "mother", "wife", "librarian", "Unitarian" and "runner".

This second half of life journey towards authenticity and wholeness is about the attempt to become whole, about being the same "you" wherever you are, and whoever you are with, rather than cutting your cloth according to your circumstances. And it's about doing a lot of shadow work, about digging deep to discover the real you, the open and vulnerable person behind the façade you have spent so many years carefully building. And then working out how to integrate that authentic self into the real world out there.

It's a tough call. And not for the faint-hearted. But it is so worthwhile. It is about waking up and becoming aware of what you are doing and where you are going; about taking responsibility for your own choices and values; and about working out what is important to you, and then living it.

Like I said, it's a tough call.

But luckily, there are many tools and wise ones to help us on our journeys. Such as an empathic spiritual director, a loving Unitarian congregation, and some wonderful books, such as, in my case, Richard Rohr and Andreas Ebert's Discovering the Enneagram, Richard Rohr's Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life, and John O'Donohue's Eternal Echoes: Exploring Our Hunger to Belong. All three have had a catalytic effect on my journey.

The words that work for you, or the teachers that will influence you will probably not be the same as mine. This is not a journey for the faint-hearted ... it can (and probably should be) quite painful and uncomfortable. But to discover who you really are, "with unique flaws and gifts" as Forrest Church says, to start to discover your authentic self, is immensely rewarding. It is the work of a lifetime, but each step we take towards authenticity, and away from the masks and concealments of our old lives, enables us to make real connections with other people, and to be at peace with our whole selves. And that is precious.

Peace in the World

On this day, the 75th anniversary of the day that the United Kingdom declared war on Hitler's Germany, two days after the latter's invasion of Poland, a reflection on war and peace.

Unitarians hold various views on pacifism or whether there can ever be a just war. It is up to each person's individual reason and conscience. And that is as it should be. We all agree with the values of peace, compassion, and forgiveness, but also justice and equity, as those which we should aim for if we desire a just and peaceful world. But some Unitarians believe that war is sometimes the lesser of two evils - that is, that intervening with arms may sometimes be necessary to prevent a greater evil. The fight to overcome the evil that was Nazism is often seen as a case in point.

But the beliefs of this 21st century Unitarian are as follows: To fight or to take a pacifist line is one of the deepest and starkest choices of personal conscience. Is pacifism a cause worth fighting for? What a paradox! I write as one who has a fairly volatile temperament at times, and one who is not a naturally pacific person. I admire Vera Brittain enormously, and the Quakers too. And I am deeply impressed by the realisation that we are all human beings, given life by God. What right have others to take that life away? What cause can possibly justify it?

Being a mother has also affected my views. Having grown my children in the womb, and having nurtured them in the years that have followed, I feel a deep fellowship with all women who have done the same, and can imagine the anguish that every parent must feel when their precious child is maimed or killed.

The common humanity of humankind should be an overarching bond that prevents war. After any natural or man-made disaster, we see this in action. Offers of money and help pour in, as we rush to succour our fellow human beings in distress. We just need to be reminded of our common humanity. Often.

A friend of mine sums up the arguments for and against pacifism as follows:

"The fence on which I seem to sit is this:

1. That I am dedicated to the proposition that love will ultimately (but not consistently or progressively) triumph over hate.

2. That by the same token peace will triumph over war - but not consistently or progressively.

3. That there are some things one must do, not believing in their success, but because doing them is essential to one's integrity (actually I'd say 'for the sake of my soul')

4. I know quite well that my blood can be fired by the beat of a drum or the skirl of pipes - just as I can be moved by 'Last night I had the strangest dream'. I am not one of the world's instinctive herbivores." 

It is the responsibility of the living to make meaningful the sacrifices of the dead. It is the job of anyone who is horrified by the futility and slaughter of war to attempt to influence their government and fellow citizens to work towards a more peaceful, happier world, in which war would no longer be necessary. And I know that faith groups the world over are trying to do this - we just all need to work together, and to keep at it, until humankind finally realises that peace is so much better than war, for everyone.

Most wars are allegedly fought to bring peace - a most ingenious paradox! We should remember the dead, and honour their sacrifice, but also pledge ourselves to make our world a better place - to end all wars, to relieve world debt, to feed the hungry, to find a cure for AIDS, to stop destroying our environment. It is still a beautiful planet, or it could be, if we could only learn to live together in peace. 

Equal Rights, Equal Respect

Unitarians have always campaigned for civil and religious liberty, at first for themselves, and simultaneously and subsequently for other oppressed minorities. We believe that every person is deserving of respect and that every person should have equal access to opportunities in life. Therefore we are firmly opposed to oppression and discrimination on the grounds of gender, age, sexual orientation, race, religion or any other arbitrary grounds.

 This fundamental belief in the importance of civil and religious liberty has inspired Unitarians to become involved with a variety of social and political issues over the centuries: the abolition of slavery, better conditions for factory workers, universal education, equal rights for women (for example, we were the first denomination in Britain to have a female minister, Gertrude von Petzold, in 1904), and more recently, equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Our leaflet, Where We Stand: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People and the Unitarian & Free Christian Churches, explains that the Unitarian and Free Christian commitment to equality in the UK is long-standing and wide-ranging; individuals and congregations have always been involved in different areas of social reform. For example, as long ago as 1977, the General Assembly passed a resolution: "That the ministry of the denomination be open to all regardless of sex, race, colour, or sexual orientation, and expresses an abhorrence of discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation." 

Most recently, together with the Quakers and the Liberal Jews, we have been prominent in the successful campaign for equal marriage - that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to be married in church or chapel on exactly the same basis as heterosexual couples, because we believe that marriage should be about two people committing to love and care for each other for the rest of their lives, rather than on the ability to procreate.

Our concern for the socially-disadvantaged and oppressed has also led many individual Unitarians to work with various different pressure groups such as Amnesty International, Shelter, women's groups and others. This is what walking the talk is about.

Keep It Simple

Henry David Thoreau was an American Transcendentalist and friend of leading 19^th century Unitarian theologian Ralph Waldo Emerson. He is perhaps most well known for his book Walden, or Life in the Woods, in which he describes the results of a two-year experiment in simple living. In July 1845, he moved to a small, self-built house on land owned by Emerson in a second-growth forest around the shores of Walden Pond. The house was in "a pretty pasture and woodlot" of 14 acres that Emerson had bought, a mile and a half from his family home. A quote from the book explains what he was trying to do:

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.” 

Simplicity is a different way of looking at the world, of appreciating our blessings and being grateful for the wonders and joys of everyday life, and I think that this is what Thoreau was getting at. For we live in a world of wonders. Computers, especially the Internet, have transformed our lives. It is salutary to think that my  little iPod has more technological whammy in it than the computers used to support the Apollo 11 mission forty years ago! And my faithful sat-nav guides me on all my journeys; a small machine that somehow links up with satellites up in space, and knows exactly where my car is on the planet’s surface. It really is amazing.

But the shadow side is there too. Technology has enabled many evils as well as many benefits: the surveillance of everyone, everyday via CCTV; climate change caused by acid rain and holes in the ozone layer – the list goes on. And all this technology doesn’t seem to have made us any happier or given us fuller, more meaningful lives. So perhaps we need to look at an alternative way of living, one which doesn't come with such a high price-tag.

The Quakers have Simplicity as one of their testimonies. As they explain on their website: "Simplicity involves constantly challenging the way we live and what our true needs are, and especially how our own standard of living is sometimes achieved at the expense of others. It means standing aside from the fuelling of wants and manufacturing of new desires.” 

This is a very different approach to life. Closely linked to Enoughism, it involves taking life as it comes, with thankfulness, appreciating what we have, and not always wanting more. Most importantly, it involves being aware, all the time, of the marvels around us, whether they are people or places or things. And also being aware of the resources and people who have been instrumental in enabling us to have these marvels. And making judgements, as to whether this or that material possession is worth the cost. And whether we, as individuals, can live with what it costs others to provide it for us.

I’m not saying that we can do all this all at once; it is the work of a lifetime. But just being aware of this different approach to life may make a difference; it may help us to realise that the world is a pretty amazing place, and to count our blessings and recognise the wonders with which we are surrounded. And to have the insight to realise that actually, we don’t need the latest gadget / thingummy that is being plugged as a “must-have” in the media. Enoughness is good.

At the time I was writing this, I broke for lunch at this point. So I ate my lunch mindfully, thinking about the food I was eating – where it had come from, all the different people and resources involved in bringing it to my plate, what it tasted like, and gave thanks. I didn’t read as I ate, which is my usual practice, but concentrated on the act of eating. And it made the food taste nicer! I really appreciated the simple meal. When I got back to the computer, my lovely Lord of the Rings screensaver was working away, and I took the time to wonder at its beauty, and at the technology that made it possible.

May we all remember to count our blessings, and realise how very rich we are, and like Thoreau, realise that “Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.” 

Peace Within

For me, there are two main aspects to peace: the quest for inner peace; and a striving towards peace in the world.

image by Karen Heidi Rees

The first can sound a bit like an advertising slogan: 'Inner peace and how to find it.' I have come to realise in recent years that inner peace is one of the most difficult things to obtain, and yet harder to hold on to. And I'm not the only one by a long way. Go into any bookshop, and look in the Mind and Spirit section. You will find the shelves groaning with titles like The Little Book of Calm or Chicken Soup for the Soul or De-stress Your Life in 30 Days (I made the last one up, but I'm sure that such a title exists). And there are DVDs you can buy to teach yourself yoga or pilates to regain control of your life. 

But as a Quakerly-inclined Unitarian, I believe that there has to be a God-element as well. I love the words of our Unitarian hymn (by John Andrew Storey):

"I sent my soul some truth to win; / my soul returned these words to tell: / 'Look not beyond, but turn within, / For I myself am heaven and hell.

And as my thoughts were gently led, / half-held beliefs were seen as true; / I heard, as new, words Jesus said: / 'My friend, God's kingdom lies in you.

Now though I labour, as I must / to build the kingdom yet to be, / I know my hopes will turn to dust, / if first it is not built in me."

How can we attain inner peace in the hurly-burly of everyday life? Most of us spend our lives rushing around from one task to the next - work, shopping, looking after the children, housework, laundry, socialising - the list is endless. People find it more and more difficult to relax, and to attain inner peace, because they've forgotten how to stop.

But we're not supposed to be like this. Every person needs to have some time to centre down, to be at peace, to recharge their emotional and spiritual batteries. I believe that one of the most important of God's creations is the Sabbath - a time to rest, to re-group, and come back to our everyday lives refreshed. One reason why my faith is so important to me is that it has taught me that there is another way of living your life, even if I don't follow it all (or even most of) the time.

There are times when being busy, busy, busy just gets too much. The thought crosses your mind "Stop the world! I want to get off!" But it won't stop, so you have to consciously make the effort to schedule some time to step off the treadmill. It may take a little creative selfishness to realise that you are quite entitled to do this, and quite a bit of planning to reschedule your activities, and find a free time-slot, but it can be done. It doesn't have to be a long time, this 'Me-time', even ten minutes can be enough (depending on what you are doing) it just needs to be regular and consistent.

What you do in your me-time will depend on you. Many people find that meditation works for them - sitting in silence, following their breath, and emptying their minds. I have some prayer beads which I made at Summer School a few years ago, and they really help me to focus, and to let everyday life go.

Prayer can also lead to a deep sense of inner peace. I have friends who do this, and I am sure that it helps them to see more clearly and live their lives more serenely. Many people find that listening to a piece of really beautiful music can whirl their minds away, and they come back to earth with a bump at the end of the record. Reading something inspirational may also help - this is something I do a lot, to remind myself of what I'm supposed to be doing, and to regain my perspective.

Physical exercise is also a good way of achieving inner peace. I know that sounds weird, because flogging up and down a swimming pool or playing a game of football may seem the complete opposite of peaceful. But certain forms of exercise really do help you to relax and centre down. Yoga is an obvious one - the fact that you have to concentrate on your breathing clears the mind wonderfully. Personally speaking, I find that going for a gentle run is one of the best stress-busters in the world. If you're not pushing yourself too hard, and can get into an even rhythm, running can be very cathartic.

Going for a walk is another good method of relaxing and centring down. Again, the rhythm of your strides can be soothing, and if you start to pay attention to what you are seeing around you, there is beauty almost everywhere - whether it's a mountain, a star, a sparkling stream, or the bark of a tree, the ever-changing sea, or the architecture of a particular building. Many people find that a spot of gardening, or doing a craft that you love, can have the same effect, if you do it in the right frame of mind.

All these things can bring you, in Sidney Lovett's words, "wisdom and patience and solace, and, above all, the assurance that you are not alone in the world."

The Sovereign Importance of Compassion

The Sovereign Importance of  Compassion

The Golden Rule lies at the heart of all religions. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone followed it! If every person genuinely tried to behave to the rest of humankind with a concern and care for how they would feel. As it says in the Charter for Compassion:

“Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creature, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.” 

 For me, increasingly, the central importance of the Golden Rule is at the heart of my own system of thought and belief, my own theology. Whether we follow the positive imperative of Jesus: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”, or the negative imperative of Confucius: “What you do not want done to you, do not do to others”, the message is the same.

The Charter for Compassion invites us to “restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion, to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate, to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures, to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity, to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.”

If we want to make our religion more compassionate, it is we that have to do it - we who have to be the change we want to see in the world. We have to take responsibility for our own traditions. It is no good waiting for "them" to do something - even if "them" is the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, which is a partner organisation of the Charter for Compassion. It is us, the individual congregations, the individual people in those congregations, who need to take responsibility ourselves - to become activists *where we are*. We need to work hard, to think outside the box, to grapple with difficulties. There are no simple blanket solutions.

If we are to embrace the Golden Rule, we need to start here, where we are. Let us ask ourselves the questions

• Have I shown mutual respect and goodwill to my friends and neighbours?
• Have I practiced constructive tolerance and openness towards the sincerely-held beliefs of others?
• Am I doing as I would be done by?
• Am I doing my best to avoid giving pain to others?

 As Unitarians, there are things that we can all do to bring compassion into the heart of our denomination, from the small acts of kindness we do to each other and in the wider world, to supporting social justice issues that promote tolerance, inclusivity, and peace. And supporting them by doing something practical, not just giving a donation and forgetting about it. We can set up engagement groups to discuss Armstrong’s book Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life; we can preach about compassion from the pulpit, and most importantly, we can strive to follow the Golden Rule ourselves, and lead by example. If we can encourage and support our congregations to do the same, I do believe that we could make a real difference to the world we live in, for the better. 

Learning from Others

One of the lovely things about being a Unitarian is that we can respect the spiritual and religious journeys of members of many religious traditions, and also receive inspiration from them. Because of the undogmatic nature of Unitarianism, we believe that all human beings are spiritual beings; and all are able to have a relationship with the Divine Other, which some may call God, some Allah, some Brahma, some Lord, some Spirit of Life, some Ultimate Reality - the list goes on.

The changing nature of the beliefs and values of Unitarians, particularly over the last half century or so,  has been detailed in Vernon Marshall's book The Larger View: Unitarians and World Religions, which I commend to you as a fascinating read. In it he writes: "modern Unitarianism in Britain is a movement that is based on principles, rather than on theology. It acknowledges its origins in liberal Christianity, and respects them, but now affirms the right of its individual members to find their own religious position."

Of course this includes finding inspiration from the writings and teachings of other religious traditions, both Christian and non-Christian. Many people within our movement today are attracted to (among others) Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Sufism. I find particular inspiration from Quaker writings and wisdom, from Taoism, and from the poetry of Hafiz and Rumi.

This interest is not just confined to private study; readings in Unitarian worship services will often include something from another religious tradition, because the worship leader finds that it is the most appropriate way of saying what they want to say. And other elements from many different religious traditions have crept into Unitarian worship - meditation, the use of some Pagan rituals, Dances of Universal Peace, Taizé chanting and so on.

This has added immeasurably to the richness and variety of Unitarian worship. And Unitarians are also much involved in inter-faith work: the World Congress of Faiths and the International Association for Religious Freedom both have prominent Unitarian members, and many congregations and ministers are involved in inter-faith work at a local level, working with adherents of other religions to foster compassion and tolerance where they are.

It is my firm belief that learning about and engaging with other religious traditions is an important part of the practice of compassion, so that we may understand others' spiritual and religious practices, rather than fearing them. This will have the dual effect of deepening our own Unitarian faith and practice, and also of enabling us to stand up for inter-religious tolerance, compassion and understanding, in our conflicted world.

The Bible and Unitarians

When I started the Worship Studies Course (a training course for Unitarian lay preachers), my knowledge of the Bible was very superficial - I knew most of the dear old stories that we learn at our mothers' knees, and was reasonably familiar with the four canonical Gospels. And I knew that an awful lot of good advice was squirreled away in it - advice by which countless Jews and Christians had live their lives. But my knowledge of the Hebrew Bible was, as I say, limited to the famous stories - Daniel in the Lion's Den; Moses and the Ten Commandments; Joseph and his Coat of Many Colours and so on - you can fill in the rest.

At the beginning of the Biblical Studies module, I realised that I was going to have to do quite a bit of reading. What I hadn't realised was how fascinating I was going to find it - there is just so much in the Bible. To know it well must be a life's study. My first shock was how readable a modern version can be - I have a New Revised Standard Version. My second shock was how much I didn't know - for example, in the famous story of David and Goliath, I had never appreciated that the stone David threw only stunned Goliath, and he finished him off by cutting his head off!

This exciting experience of revelation and discovery must be like that experienced by people in the 16th century CE when the first Bibles became widely available in English, due to the spread of printing (up until then, the Church had made sure that they were only written in Latin and Greek, and were hence 'closed books' to all but the highly-educated. Before these brave pioneers (William Tyndale in 1526 and Miles Coverdale in 1535) published their translations of the New Testament and the entire Bible, only those with Latin or Greek (in effect the clergy) could read the Bible, and ordinary people had to believe what they were told.Why do I say "brave pioneers"? Well, the Church was desperately afraid that if people could read the Bible for themselves, they might distort or misinterpret its message (thinking for themselves, shock, horror!). So Tyndale was burned at the stake for heresy.

Then, following the English Reformation in the 1530s, King Henry VIII ordered that copies of a new translation, The Great Bible, be placed in every church, in 1539. This was the first "authorised version" of the Bible in English. The revolution had begun. After a brief period of suppression during Queen Mary's reign, bishops of the Church of England produced The Bishops' Bible in 1568, which was followed most famously by The King James Bible in 1611, which is now known as The Authorised Version. Although there have been many other translations since, the Authorised Version is certainly the edition that has influenced so much of English literature, and the edition whose language most people are most familiar with.

The printing press enabled more books to be published in the vernacular, which in turn led to a sort of virtuous circle: the more books that were available, the more people were likely to be able to learn to read, and hence educate themselves. Unitarianism is a most unusual faith, in that it evolved simultaneously in many countries at about the same time. People in many lands were studying their Bibles, and, finding no evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity (which had been accepted as Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and further confirmed at the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE). So they rejected it, going back to their Bibles to find out what the earliest Christians had believed.

It is worth realising that our progressive, questioning faith is built upon the blood of some brave men, who died in defence of their beliefs that the doctrine of the Trinity was a mistake - for example, Michael Servetus in 1553 (who was burnt at the stake in Geneva under the influence of John Calvin); Francis David, the pioneer of Unitarianism in Transylvania, who insisted that prayer could only be offered to God and not through Jesus, and who died in prison in 1579; and our own John Biddle, who died of a disease caught while in prison for his beliefs, in 1662.

So the Bible had a vital role to play in Unitarian thinking and history, from the denomination's earliest days. Today, the Bible is one of the many sources of wisdom available to us, and used by us in our spiritual quests. Cliff Reed puts it like this in Unitarian? What's That? "Unitarians see the Bible as the record of a people's long struggle to understand themselves, their world and their God. In it the writers describe and interpret the spiritual dimension of their existence and their history ... Where we find in scripture a source of sustaining and abiding truth, it can be said to be a source of divine wisdom."

Sacred Words

This quotation from Stephen Lingwood's The Unitarian Life summarises neatly the Unitarian attitude to sacred texts:

"We can pay attention to a cloud of witnesses from many different countries around the world and many different times in history. We can delve deep into the traditions of our spiritual ancestors and listen to their voices. In doing so, we can create a 'living scripture': a loose, dynamic collection of texts which bring together essential insights from the past and present of our movement."

In our worship and our devotions, we are not limited to readings from a particular sacred text - we are free to create our own 'living scripture' of readings that will speak to our condition and that of our congregations. 

Der lesende Klosterschuler - the reading monk

Every Unitarian will have different books which inspire them, which speak to their condition and influence their lives. The Bible used to be our primary source of inspiration and revelation, and for some Unitarians, it still is. But times have also moved on. At a recent conference of the Ministerial Old Students' Association at Harris Manchester College, Oxford, Sister Benedicta Ward, Supernumerary Fellow & Dean of Degrees at the College and a member of the Anglican religious community of the Sisters of the Love of God, led a session on Devotional Literature, which she described as "written words that help us give ourselves over to the Divine."

She had asked those present to bring a book with them, which had helped in their own spiritual journeys. The choices (from current, retired and aspiring Unitarian ministers) were fascinating:

• The Benedictine Rule
• The works of UU minister Forest Church
• A Year of Grace, compiled by Victor Gollancz
• Love Poems From God: Twelve Sacred Voices from East and West
• The Great Companions
• Writings by Julian of Norwich
• The prayers of James Martineau and Harry Lismer Short
• Guide to Walking Meditation by Thich Nhat Hanh
• In the Holy Quiet of This Hour by Richard S. Gilbert
• Poetry by R.S. Thomas
• The Psalms
• The Sacred Space -scriptural readings & reflections on them by Irish Jesuits
• Quaker Advices and Queries
• The works of Henri Nouwen
• The Shaking of the Foundations by Paul Tillich
• New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton
• On Praying the Psalms by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
• The Language of the Heart by A. Powell Davies

Quite a mixed selection. Many of the titles put forward "rang bells" with other folk. Sr. Benedicta explained that devotional reading was a very different exercise from reading to analyse and dissect a text. The important thing is to be still and to learn to listen to what the Divine is telling you through the medium of the text. This approach may be too mystical for many Unitarians, but most of the ministers present seemed to resonate with it.

Enoughness

The title of this blogpost is taken from John Naish's book Enough. His argument is that not only do we have everything we could possibly need, but also that by always chasing after more, we are wrecking the planet for everyone else (not to mention future generations), AND not being any happier and fulfilled ourselves. He warns that if we don’t appreciate this fact, the cycle of manufacturing and consuming ever ‘more’ of everything  “will continue until the planet is only fit for cockroaches.” 

One of the worst things that the affluent West is doing is producing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming and climate change. And the irony is, although we (the developed world) are the major “sinners” in this respect, it is in the developing world that the worst impacts are felt – through drought, flooding, and other natural disasters such as tsunamis.

So what can we, as concerned individuals, do? It isn’t enough just to put the papers and bottles into a recycling box once a week, or to buy organic vegetables. To really make a difference, enough of us need to make fundamental changes to our lifestyles.

I think the time is drawing near when we can no longer put our heads in the sand. Not if we want to live with ourselves. Not if we want a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren to live on. Not if we truly believe that exploitation and slavery are wrong. Perhaps it is time for us to take responsibility for the choices we make, and to buy only fair-traded food, and ethically produced clothing.  If enough of us “voted with our feet” by no longer buying goods that are the results of exploitation, maybe things would change. Maybe.

All these things are fine and practical. But I agree with John Naish when he says that the changes we need to make are more fundamental. We really do need to adopt his doctrine of enoughism and realise that we already have everything we need. We need to educate ourselves out of the consumerist treadmill that our primitive brains have hot-wired us into, and realise that we actually don’t need to buy the latest gadget, the newest fashion item, the fastest car, in order to be contented and fulfilled in our lives. We need to wean ourselves off the dependency on material goods to provide happiness, because he’s right – they don’t. We need to  examine our lives with enoughism in mind, and ask ourselves some important questions, like:

·         What optimum level of information do I need to thrive?

·         How many technological gadgets do I actually need, as opposed to desire?

·         Do I really savour the food I eat? Or do I gollop it down quickly without tasting it?

·         Do I truly need this new outfit / mobile phone / slow cooker, rather than just want it?

·         Has my desire for this thing been implanted by marketing techniques?

·         Is there anything I already own that I could substitute for it?

·         If I’m replacing something I’ve already got, what’s really wrong with the old one?

·         Have I got my work/life balance right?

·         Do I spend my leisure time doing the things I love?

·         What do I truly value?

Reading Naish’s book has really made me realise how badly we are messing up the planet, with our insatiable demands for more of everything. To pay for our Western affluence, 80% of the world’s population lives in sub-standard housing, and 50% suffer from malnutrition. Our selfish ways mean that global warming is spiralling out of control, with fateful consequences for our world. It is time to say STOP, re-evaluate our lives and try to un-do some of the harm we have done.

Sacred Living

Christians have sacraments, which Augustine defined as "the visible form of an invisible grace." Protestants have two: baptism and the Lord's Supper or communion; Roman Catholics have an additional five: confirmation, confession (or penance), marriage, ordination and extreme unction or last rites (although I understand that this last can now be done if the person is ill rather than dying). My Baptist lecturer at Regent's Park College, Myra Blyth, stated that "they point to and reveal the creating, redeeming grace of God through their association with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus ... They are an extension of Christ's ministry in and to the world."

But as I have stated elsewhere on this blog, I would rather believe with the Christian writer John Macquarrie that we live in a sacramental universe. Rather than the Divine presence being limited to either two or seven sacraments, Macquarrie believes that God has so arranged things that the material world can “become a door or channel of communication through which he comes to us and we may go to him." For this reason, “man’s spiritual wellbeing demands that he should recognise and cherish the visible things of the world as things that are made by God and that provide access to God.” 

In other words, God / the Spirit / the Divine other is present everywhere, all the time. The trick of sacred living is recognising this.

Sacred living is about weaving moments of attention into your everyday life, and recognising the sacred there. It is about living with a new level of awareness. It is about going through our day paying attention to what is happening in each passing moment. It is about noticing the presence of the divine, the numinous, everywhere, in the natural world, in other people, in ourselves, and in things that happen to us. Sacred living is about rediscovering our sense of wonder, and living our lives in response to that.

A prayer quoted by Rachel Naomi Remen, in her wonderful book My Grandfather’s Blessings, reads:

“Days pass, and the years vanish and we walk sightless among miracles.

Lord, fill our eyes with seeing, and our minds with knowing.

Let there be moments when your Presence, like lightning, illumines the darkness in which we walk.

Help us to see, wherever we gaze, that the bush burns, unconsumed.

And we, clay touched by God, will reach out for holiness, and exclaim in wonder: ‘How filled with awe is this place, and we did not know it.’” 

Christian or Post-Christian?

As a movement, Unitarianism has evolved over the last fifty years, from being a broadly Christian denomination (albeit one whose followers believed in the teachings rather than in the divinity of Jesus) to a more broadly-based post-Christian position (although there are still many Unitarian Christians, and indeed Free Christians, within our ranks). It is up to each individual Unitarian to forge their own distinctive faith, as we believe that “everyone has the right to seek truth and meaning for themselves; that the fundamental tools for doing this are your own life-experience, your reflection upon it, your intuitive understanding and the promptings of your own conscience."

Another typically post-modern aspect of Unitarianism is that we do not claim to know all the answers about religion and spirituality; rather, we offer a safe and sacred space in which all are free to explore their different paths of faith, according to their individual reasons and consciences, knowing that they will be held and accepted, just the way they are. The purpose of our Unitarian congregations is “to meet the spiritual needs of the individual in the context of a loving community; to share joy and to offer comfort in times of trial; to enjoy warmth of fellowship; to make itself welcoming, inclusive and a blessing to the wider world.” This again is a very post-modern perspective, with its emphasis on the importance of the individual community as a place where meaning may be explored.

However, this emphasis on loving community can also move Unitarians away from the individual search for truth and meaning, as we choose to work together for the greater good of the environment or our fellow human beings. But I believe that this identification of the sacred task with the duty of care for fellow human beings and the whole planet is a strength rather than a weakness, as our social witness is an important part of who we are. We believe that there is time and space for both aspects in our religious and spiritual lives.

This is the reason why our other-than-Sunday-worship groups are so important. Most Unitarian congregations do not just meet for Sunday worship. As well as this central religious activity (the significance of which I am not denying) small groups of people meet during the week, often in the evenings, for a variety of purposes. Book groups and discussion groups are common, as are knitting / craft groups, meditation groups and the more spiritually-based engagement groups or BYOT (Build Your Own Theology) groups. All give individual members the opportunity to explore their own spirituality or faith at another time apart from the Sunday service. Membership of such groups gives the individual the opportunity to do some deep spiritual sharing and exploration in a safe space, and also to “belong” at a deeper and more intimate level than is possible by just attending Sunday worship.

Many Unitarian congregations are also involved with social justice work and/or inter-faith work. For example, some congregations collect food and other items for local food banks or women's refuges. Others have close relationships with progressive Muslim organisations or with their nearest branch of the Council of Christians and Liberal Jews, which is thus both ecumenical and inter-faith. Some have good relationships with other churches in their area, although sadly, this is not always the case, as some mainstream Christian congregations still seem to shun us.

Unitarian congregations with church halls often play host to groups from the holistic milieu, for example yoga or tai-chi classes, and members of the congregation will sometimes join them. Unlike most other denominations, there is no bar to attending the services of another denomination or faith, so some Unitarians are also involved with Pagans or Buddhists or Quakers, to name three fairly common affiliations. So for us the spiritual revolution has been more of a gentle evolution – we were heading in that direction anyway, so no revolution was required.

The Imperative to Think Things Through

[this post appeared in a slightly different form over on Still I Am One in April 2011]

Unitarians generally place a lot of importance on thinking things through for themselves, rather than blindly following a path that another has laid down for them. But it can get very complicated ...

For example, one day I took my son out to lunch at Pizza Hut. We had the all-you-can-eat buffet, and I was looking idly at the bill (you know the way they leave it on the table part way through the meal) and noticed that they had only charged us for one buffet (i.e. £6.99 instead of £13.98). So I pointed this out the next time the waitress came over to see if we were OK, and she took the bill away and amended it.

So far, so simple. My son commended me on my honesty, and I said something about not being able to do anything else. This led, I cannot say how, to a long and involved discussion about comparative approaches to ethics, deontological versus teleological, which he said meant according different degrees of significance to principles or consequences. I argued that there were some things that were always right or wrong, regardless of consequences, and he proceeded to pick very large holes in my arguments by giving specific examples.

For example, I have always maintained that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was inexcusable and unforgiveable, and that nuclear weapons should never be used under any circumstances. He argued that if those bombs had not been dropped, many more thousands of people on both sides would have died in a war which would have lasted until 1950. In other words, the consequences of dropping the bombs were less bad overall than not dropping them. I still don't agree with him, but he has a point.

Why is our world so complicated? Why aren't ethical decisions simple and straightforward and obvious? Wouldn't it be a much better world if they were - if there was an obvious right and wrong decision to make? My inner child would love things to be that simple; if there were only one obvious source of evil (like Sauron in The Lord of the Rings) and all the "goodies" would be on the other side, and good would always triumph over evil. That would be so much more satisfying, and easy to pontificate about. We (my son and I) are watching Game of Thrones, at the moment, which is much more complex, and I get very upset every time a "goodie" gets bumped off, which seems to happened with distressing regularity.

But our world is not simple (thank goodness). There are no black and white answers to any complex questions - there are always and only shades of grey. The problem with seeing things in black and white is that it is such a narrow point of view; in order to judge wisely (notice I don't say "to judge rightly") you have to look at all sides of a question and use what Karen Armstrong calls empathic compassion - putting yourself in the other person's shoes. Maybe if more of us tried to do this for more of the time, there would be less anger and hatred and misunderstanding and deprivation in the world.

The Charter for Compassion is an important step in the right direction. And if supporting it means always seeing the other person's point of view and acting according to the Golden Rule, then maybe my son was right and I was wrong, and consequences are more important than principles.

But then why are we taught that some things are right and some are wrong? I still could not have walked out of Pizza Hut without saying anything about the bill, because that would have been dishonest and that is wrong. (Even though, as he pointed out, Pizza Hut makes massive profits and wouldn't have missed my £6.99). But in another circumstance, would dishonesty be right? My son gave me the example of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich to give to the poor, (which was technically a dishonest crime) and many of us today (including me) support the Robin Hood Tax. But isn't that condoning legalised theft? My brain is hurting already.

I think that the biggest wrong that we can do is not to think about these things, but to judge hastily and without thought, according to what someone else tells us. I think that in most cases there are no absolute right or wrong answers, but that our absolute duty is to consider each individual case carefully and empathically, on its merits. That is perhaps the best we can do.

Deeds Not Creeds

 My favourite definition of faith is that by Clarence Jordan, author of the Cotton Patch translations of the New Testament: "Faith is not belief in spite of evidence; but a life in scorn of the consequences." It means living your beliefs, regardless of what it may cost. It means having integrity; it means "walking the talk". Our free-thinking, independent-minded way of approaching life is poles apart from accepting a creed because someone higher up the religious hierarchy tells us to. I would like to share the statement of faith from the website of my home congregation, Northampton, which was cobbled together from a variety of other Unitarian sources (General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches leaflet A Faith Worth Thinking About, and Rev. Cliff Reed):

Our Faith

Unitarianism is a religious movement in which individuals are free to follow their reason and conscience; there is no pressure from creed or scripture. We are open to change in the light of new thought and discoveries.

We believe that:

• everyone has the right to seek truth and meaning for themselves.
• the fundamental tools for doing this are your own life experience, your reflection upon it, your intuitive understanding and the promptings of your own conscience.
• the best place to do this is a community that welcomes you for who you are, complete with your beliefs, doubts and questions.

We offer:

• liberty of conscience and freedom from imposed creed, confessions and dogmas.
• a fellowship where people come together to worship; to share times of celebration and trial; and to help each other in the quest for a faith to live by.

We affirm the universal values of love and compassion, peace, truth and justice.

We welcome all who come to us in the spirit of goodwill and enquiry, regardless of ethnic or religious background, age, gender, or sexual orientation."

I think that's quite something. That statement of faith places a very high value on personal integrity - on finding your own way to the best that you know. It is not something that we do for one hour on a Sunday; it is a way of living - not only affirming the universal values of love and compassion, peace, truth and justice, but also doing our best to make them matter in the world, and in our own lives. It is something on which I can rest, in the assurance that if I try to live up to those ideals, I will be faith-fully working towards becoming the best person I can be.

Unitarian Spiritualities

Unitarian minister Cliff Reed provides a succint summary about Unitarian spiritualities in his book Unitarian? What's That? He writes: "Within the Unitarian historical tradition there have been many strands. These include deeply devotional Christian and Theistic forms, as well as a strong belief in the necessity of reason. Religious humanism has also played its part, by locating the focus of spiritual concern wholly in our life in this world rather than in realms or beings deemed supernatural. Another long-standing, and now resurgent theme, is that of nature or the creation as replete with spiritual significance." 

In other words, Unitarians are free to recognise the Spirit or the path to the Spirit where they will - in God, in other human beings, or in the natural world. Or in all of them. In the first half of the 20th century, following on from Martineau, much emphasis was laid on the primacy of reason and conscience. But in the last 50 or 60 years, many Unitarians have moved away from this purely rational approach to the Spirit, and towards a more right-brain, intuitive, mystical approach. Meditation has become much more commonplace among us, both in church services, and also for personal devotion. Workshops are held to explain and allow people to experience different spiritual practices - prayer beads, lectio divina, journalling, different kinds of prayer, Taizé chanting, Dances of Universal Peace - the list is endless. A certain amount of ritual has crept back into our services, which the Rational Dissenters of another age would have frowned upon. Some churches hold short communion services at particular times of the year; others celebrate the Pagan festivals connected to the wheel of the year - the solstices, the equinoxes, and Imbolc, Beltane, Lammas and Samhain. I believe that this has added immeasurably to the richness of Unitarian worship.

One ritual which the vast majority of Unitarian chapels and churches observe weekly is the lighting of the chalice flame. The chalice represents the Unitarian community, and the flame can represent various things: freedom, truth, liberty, spirit. Some also light Candles of Joy and Concern regularly, which give the congregation a chance to participate in the service. And there are special Unitarian communion services, which we have imported from Unitarian traditions elsewhere in the world. Many British congregations hold an annual Flower Communion service, for example, which involves bringing a flower with you, that has some meaning for you, and taking home another, that someone else has brought.

John Midgley explains: "The Flower Communion Service originated in the Czechoslovak Republic before the Second World War. Rev. Dr. Norbert Capek, a former Baptist minister and journalist, who founded the Unitarian Church in Prague in 1921, felt that the traditional Christian Communion Service, with bread and wine, was unacceptable to many of the members of his congregation because of their strong reaction against the Catholic faith. So he turned to the native beauty of their countryside for elements of a new communion, which would be genuine to them. It became one of their most significant services and was soon introduced in other Unitarian congregations."

So these days, it may be said with some truth that Unitarians connect with the Spirit in many different ways. And that is good.