Humanist Teachings©  
March 16, 2003
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland
Jane Thickstun, Celebrant

Sermon

            As we continue in our series on the sources our Living Tradition draws on, we come to the fifth source in the list.  We have already this year talked about the first four, which are:

1.  Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life.

2.  Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love.

3.  Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life.

4.  Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves.

            The fifth is:  Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

            Humanism, as a modern movement, grew out of the developments in science which gave us explanations for some of those eternal questions that had before been veiled in mystery.  In particular, the growing acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution explained humanity’s existence as part of the natural world. 

            The modern movement has roots in the humanism of the ancient Greeks and of the Italian Renaissance.  The common thread is an emphasis on the development of human beings in this world, in this life. The Renaissance was itself based on the revival of the classical Greek works of literature.  In contrast, the humanism of the twentieth century “embraced science and the scientific method as the means for arriving at the truth.” (Olds, p. 5)

            Religious humanism developed within Unitarianism in the first three decades of the twentieth century.  Like the Transcendentalism of the nineteenth century (the movement of Emerson, Thoreau and Parker, among others), Humanism developed as a distinct theological movement within Unitarianism.  A similar movement was happening in the wider society, as people more and more felt a contradiction between the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of science.  Some resolved it by leaving the church, some by joining the rise of fundamentalism, which rejected the findings of science that contradicted their religios belief.  Only in Unitarianism was the religion adapted to accommodate the results of science.

            Unitarianism already had a tradition of valuing the voice of reason.  Deeply embedded within Unitarianism was a belief in the value of the human being, the inherent worth and dignity of each and every person.  The primary religious authority in Unitarianism was already the conscience of the individual, before tradition or scripture.  Biblical criticism, which looks at the bible as a work of literature written by various ordinary people over time, had become accepted.   Everything had to pass the test of reason.  So Unitarianism was a fertile ground for planting a religious humanism.  Even so, it did not come easily.     

            Three men are primarily responsible for spreading Humanism in Unitarianism.  John Dietrich was a long-time minister of the First Unitarian Church in Minneapolis, Charles Potter was the minister of a congregation in New York City, and Curtis Reese was a minister and denominational official.  Reese helped bring Meadville Theological School to Chicago, as well as helping prepare the way for the 1961 merger of the Unitarians and the Universalists.  These men all came from Christian denominations which they found too constricting, then they proceeded to expand the theological boundaries of their new religious home.  They also were not New Englanders - they ministered in the west.  By this time, Massachusetts was no longer the sole influence on the intellectual direction of Unitarianism.

            In 1928 the Humanist Fellowship was organized and began publication of a journal, the New Humanist.  In 1933 the journal published a document called the Humanist Manifesto, which is the most famous statement of the humanist position.  It was signed by Dietrich, Potter and Reese and 31 others, including John Dewey.  This document was written by Roy Wood Sellars, a philosophy professor at the University of Michigan, and ended up being widely published and debated.

            Some of the theses are (and please excuse the non-inclusive language):

1.  Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

2.  Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

3.  Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

4.  Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to the interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage.  The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

5.  Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.  Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs.  Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

7.  Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant.  Nothing human is alien to the religious.  It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation–all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living.  The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

8. Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.  This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

            By 1973, forty years after the publication of the Manifesto, events and changes in the world situation had a sobering effect on the exuberant optimism that came out of the 1930's.  A second Manifesto was published to reflect the new sensitivities within the Humanist movement.  The preface to this document explains some of the factors that required a new document:

“Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.”  The document also says, “In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio- chemical disaster.”

            The document is much longer than the 1933 one, and much more thorough.   It uses gender-inclusive language, unlike the earlier one.  It addresses such things as civil liberties, sexuality, separation of church and state, environmental issues, and technology.  It reaffirms the goals of humanism and that it is up to human beings to work to achieve those goals.  I quote, “We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people. We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want -- a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. Let us not abandon that vision in despair or cowardice. We are responsible for what we are or will be.” 

            In the years since 1973, Humanism has continued to adapt to a changing world.  For a long time it has been the dominant theology in Unitarian Universalist congregations, and still comes out far ahead in most surveys of UU theological beliefs.  Yet to some, it is starting to feel old.  New generations seek new inspiration, and by now there are generations that grew up taking a humanistic outlook for granted.  It is their birthright; now they are seeking something beyond what they were given.  There is a sense that humanism is too rational, appealing to the head but not the heart   And though I talk of generations, it isn’t necessarily age-related.

            Humanism is not going away, however.  It is too strong an influence and its mark on Unitarian Universalism is here to stay.  But it may have to keep changing and adapting to stay relevant as our world and our attitudes change. 

            Bill Murry, president of Meadville/Lombard Theological School, delivered a paper at the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly in June of 2000, suggesting that there is a new humanism that has been emerging for the last 15 or so years.  He feels the new humanism “answers most of the criticisms leveled at it by postmodernism, the women's movement, and the environmental movement.”

            The first shift Murry sees is the need to emphasize community.  He says, “If the older humanism over-emphasized the individual and individualism to the neglect of community, the new religious humanism regards the individual as fully human only within community.”  He also feels humanism needs to allow that not all emotions are irrational and that the non-rational needs to be recognized as important.  Further, he says, “if the old humanism seemed closed to a sense of wonder and mystery and to any form of transcendence, the new humanism can be an open humanism--open to wonder and mystery and transcendence in a naturalistic framework.  We can admit that there are limits to what human beings can know and understand, and that even things we think we understand can still call forth awe and wonder in us.”

            Another shift concerns tolerance.  He says, “The new humanism must be tolerant of other perspectives and willing to engage with an open mind in conversation with people who hold other perspectives. In particular I would hate to see humanist regard Unitarian Universalist theists as somehow irrational or inferior. Humanists need to work together with those who have somewhat different views.”

            And he suggests that “the new humanism must understand and appreciate the importance of the aesthetic dimension in religion and in life. . . . Today's religious humanism can appreciate the value of art, poetry, symbols, myth and ritual and of music including congregational singing.”  By including the aesthetic dimension, it can appeal to the whole person, not just the mind.

            Another point Murry makes is that the old humanism often seemed to deify human beings, whereas the new humanism must be ecologically conscious, and environmentally concerned and committed.  

            And he concludes that the goal of religious humanism is to develop our humanity to the fullest, to become “people who are free of the fictions and illusions that diminish the self, and who are free and independent within the context of a loving and caring community working together to transform the world. The religious humanist believes that human beings must rely on our own minds and hearts to achieve these goals, but that together we can make progress toward them. The new religious humanism brings together the latest contemporary understandings of what it means to be human with the best values of our liberal religious tradition to achieve that goal.”

            Ken Patton, who we heard from in the reading today, was an old-school humanist. But Patton’s writings tell us that humanism doesn’t have to be dry, scientific and ultra-rational.  Born in 1911, he began his ministry with the Disciples of Christ, but says his doubts began at fifteen, and that it took him “thirty years to struggle to self-knowledge.”  He then became the humanist minister of the Unitarian Society in Madison, Wisconsin, and soon found himself on a mission to find and create materials for humanist worship, or “celebration.”  David Bumbaugh, a professor of mine at Meadville/Lombard, has said “When I have been asked to name the most important influences upon Unitarian Universalists in [the twentieth] century, I have always put Kenneth Patton at the head of the list.  It was he who taught a monotone rationalism how to sing; it was he who taught a stumble-footed humanism how to dance; it was he who cried ‘Look!’ and taught our eyes to see the glory in the ordinary.” (The Wonder of Life, p. ix) 

            Patton was a mystic as well as a humanist.  He says “Human mysticism is natural mysticism, that oceanic experience engulfing us in this incredible universe, our sense of being one with nature, of being nature” (A Religion of Realities, p. 142) He also anticipated the interdependent web of all existence, saying, “Everything relates to every other thing, every atom laying hands on every other atom, the magnetic lode tugging at the needle of the compass, the sun clasping the earth, the earth seizing every creature on it.  Every field of force extends infinitely in every direction, and every field of force is included within every other field of force.  Every atom enwraps the universe within its inconceivable self.” (p. 143)

            I’d like to leave you with some of Patton’s words, as some of the best of the humanist teachings:

            We did not create the world; we are stuck with what we are, where we are; we make the best of our times.

            We are the innocent children of our century.

            But what we do, whether we stay where we were born, or become something new, whether we are sumps catching the run-off waters, or springs, breaches, beginnings, this we decide.

            Salvation proceeds from within; we are what we are.

            Oblivion will swallow us or it will not; we will not be there to lobby it.

            It is always today; sufficient unto the day is the salvation thereof.

The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland is recognized by the Unitarian Universalist Association as a Welcoming Congregation. We welcome, affirm, promote and celebrate the full participation of all persons in all of our activities without regard to age, gender, sexual orientation, race or any other such category of exclusion.

Please feel free to contact us with any feedback, corrections or questions at jaham@delta.edu