Unity Is a Way of Life--Not a Set of Doctrines

Church history is replete with recurring patterns. The schism declared heretical today breaks off, forms a new sect, grows into a denomination, and settles into the mainstream. Yesterday's rebels are today's staid old conservatives. We in the Unity movement could take a lesson from our fellow progressives of the Unitarian-Universalist Accociation in this regard. In Challenge of a Liberal Faith UU minister George N. Marshall writes:

"Faith will grow and change with new experiences. Hence it will have the capacity to always be adequate. When William Ellery Channing, the aged man who in his youth had been the flaming leader of the Unitarian revolt from Calvinism, met an old colleague, he noted a new danger that the younger men in the pulpit were 'making an orthodoxy of the liberalism of our youth.' Already Dr. Channing had passed beyond the position of his youth, and he recognized that once liberalism became static and systematized, it, too, would become an orthodoxy, like all other religions." (p.14)



Unity co-founder Charles Fillmore put it this way:

"The absolute freedom of the individual must be maintained at all hazards. God is the one principle; we are all as free to use God as we are free to use the principles of mathematics or of music. The principle never interferes, but if it is to be rightly applied we must develop understanding. Freedom leads to many errors, but, since it is a part of Being, man must learn to use it properly...Any system that suppresses the will is radically wrong." (Christian Healing, 112-113.)

What then shall we say to answer those who want Unity to lay down a complex baseline of beliefs which all good, card-carrying Unity people should affirm to be "in integrity" with "our teachings"?

First of all, Unity has never been a set of teachings. It is first and foremost a movement, a way of life. The excitement about new ideas and the open possibilty that we might discover something fresh and spiritually invigorating is one of the reasons Unity churches appeal to people across a broad spectrum. We are refugees and immigrants and multi-generational Unity people, united by love of God and passionate for diversity, open-minded, open-hearted, unafraid of new thoughts, come what may.

We emerged from Protestant Christianity, energized by the 19th century Christian healing movements and Emersonian Transcendentalism, yet in many ways Unity is as Hindu as it is Western. Can we envision Unity as a Christian denomination in which to be non-Christian is perfectly acceptable? Shall we seize the definitional tools from the hands of the fundamentalists and embrace a vision of the Christian faith which, to paraphrase Catholic theologian Hans Kueng, finds common ground by looking to Jesus for a decisive vision of what it means to be human and divine?

Secondly, any attempt to establish a set of doctrines which define what "Unity teaches" is doomed to failure because we are a congregational polity; there is no means to enforce doctrinal purity. That means every church membership defines what it is about. Every board of directors and minister can set their own agendas and declare their theological views. I have often made the somewhat facetious, yet technically correct, observation that a board of trustees at a local church has the power to declare its minister the Fourth Person of the Trinity. All a national church organization can do is withdraw its stamp of approval and demand the congregation cease calling itself by the denominational brand name. However, the history of all denominations shows that the more successul a local church is the less likely they will pay any attention to directions from central authority.

Thirdly, I am growing increasingly impatient with language about "our teachings" and resultant the coercive tone I am hearing from well-meaning lovers of Unity. If we concentrate on what Unity teaches, as well we could, that will begin a descent into the doctrinal wars which have marked and marred the history of most religious movements among human societies, especially in the Christian-Jewish-Islamic world. Jesus scandalized his contemporaries precisely because he refused to declare anyone outside the community of God. Advocates who want to "define Unity" and "clarify our teachings" so we can have "continuity" will deny they are moving to exclude anyone, but realize this: When you define precisely what Unity is, you also define what Unity is not. Any definition which specifies content is a formula for doctrinal warfare that invariably leads to dissent and schism. Just look at human history.

How then shall we define ourselves, if not by a catechism of beliefs? I propose we take seriously one of the oldest rubrics of the Christian church--albeit much ignored to the impoverishment of many--which has been called the "Dictum of the Fathers" (forgive the gender specifics of another age):

"In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

What are the "essentials" The fewer items to make the list, the less likely we are to shake people off the welcome wagon. I propose the following six ideas could provide a baseline for a bona fide Unity theology:

1) One Presence/One Power. (However understood.)
2) Indwelling divinity/Christ within. (You define the terms).
3) Celebrate diversity and community.
4) Trust your gifts; use them for the good of humanity.
5) Live in harmony with the Cosmos.
6) Pray and meditate any way that works for you.

Connie Fillmore's five principles are a good model, too. And you will note that in her system and in the list above the emphasis is on a combination of consciousness and action.

Unity is a wide meadow encompassing lots of possibilities, but most people will find a fence out there somewhere. As I approach my fence and look over into the adjoining meadows, I see ideas and practices which may be fascinating but are nevertheless not "Unity" to me. Doubtless you do likewise. The interesting point is that our fences don't have to stretch along the same boundary lines. Theological discussion is often about where the fenceline belongs, and the result of those ongoing exchanges will continually re-shape the meadow for each of us.