Seven Humanities — And How They Grew

During this past March, former Unitarian Universalist Association President John Buehrens visited Chattanooga for our Canvass weekend, and folks in my church took the opportunity to question him about the future of humanism as a faith stance in our movement. John replied that he felt that humanism presently was and would always be the foundation of all other theological positions within Unitarian Universalism. Unless a spirituality embraced the inherent worth and dignity of every person, the value of reason, science, and the intellect, and the use of the democratic process (all humanist positions) would not "fit" with religious liberalism. John added that humanism is evolving, and there must be room in our movement for those whose theology cannot be completely encompassed by the term "humanism."

I'm from Louisiana and so I immediately recognized that the response was in some respects a politician's answer, being a combination of a "yes but also no response." I thought it was a good answer, although I understand why others might not agree. This response further confirmed why our historic freedom of the pew is such a good thing; no Unitarian Universalist has to agree with either their own minister, the President of the Association, or with fellow congregants.

In a sermon entitled, "How We Got to Here," I went over the history, evolution, and diversity of the ways of thinking about religion and spirituality in our movement which was a few weeks before John Buehrens' visit. I looked at how our earliest days as courageous heresies of orthodox Christianity led naturally to an acceptance of the truths to be found in all the world's religions; the Divine could be found in nature; and how these understandings led further to the development of religious humanism which, "brought us to progressive stands on civil and religious rights for people of color, women, and gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons." During this time we gained new revelations and we never abandoned our spiritual roots.

LFUA records indicated that even when humanism was in its heyday, it was never the sole theological viewpoint in all our churches. The UUA Department of Ministerial Settlement conducted an informal poll in 1996. Even the most traditionally humanist UU congregations admitted that their newest members were describing themselves as mystical humanists, Christian humanists, or using some other modifier. The "Fulfilling The Promise" survey, done by the UUA in 1998, found that for the first time in a generation humanists made up less than half of the respondents, although it remained the top faith position. (For those of you who like numbers, the breakdown was humanism 46.1%, pagan 19%, theist 13%, and Christian 9.5%. The other 12.4% were spread among various minority positions and "not sure.")

In the Chattanooga congregation as well as Unitarian Universalism, humanism of whatever stripe remains the majority. As John Weston writes, "The humanist tradition is the common currency of our movement. If there is an ideological center to this movement, it lies there."

When you say the word "humanism", the reactions which you receive will depend on who's listening. If your listeners are fundamentalist, conservative Christians, you may get looks of horror. If you are before an academic audience, you will get a polite reception. If you are inside one of the "temples" of UU humanism, such as Unity Church in St. Paul, you will get smiles and warm regard. If you are talking to a UU pagan or a UU Christian who has felt shut out or belittled by staunch humanists in their congregations, you may hear a litany of complaint.

Adding to this confusion, Carol Wintermute noted in her article from the Journal of Religious Humanism, "WHICH humanism are you talking about? What definition are you using?" To do our best to give answers to these questions, we need to look back at the development of humanism, at what I'm calling, "The 7 Humanisms."

Renaissance humanism was the first, and is considered the parent of the other six humanisms. It developed in Florence in the 14th century, and was a system of education and inquiry that consisted of Latin, political science, moral philosophy, rhetoric and poetry. John H. Weston, in an article in the Unitarian Universalist Voice, stated that the goal of this training was to encourage a new kind of virtue:

on the one hand humanity: open-heartedness, mercy, and benevolence; and on the other hand nobility: commitment, courage, moral excellence in action. Love your neighbor like a Christian, deliberate like an Athenian, administer like a Roman, and fight like a Spartan (Weston, 1996).

The goal did not end with ever more virtuous individuals; it was a way of life, a way to transform society and the world.

Renaissance humanism gave birth to two additional movements: Christian humanism and Classical humanism. Christian humanism de-emphasized dogma and creeds; held to the idea of a tolerant and loving God; and taught that Jesus's gift to humanity was NOT his blood sacrifice but his moral example, a way of life to be followed and not a divine figure to be adored. (By this definition, I and many other UU Christians are really Christian humanists.)

Classical humanism is the academic program of Renaissance humanism. Classical humanism continues today in the arts and politics after the Renaissance humanism had ended. In many respects, the aftermath of the American Revolution was based in Classical humanist understandings. For example, the word "senator" was deliberately taken from ancient Greece and Rome which for the founders of our country were paradigms of civilization and culture. To the extent that we support representative democracy it might be said that all Americans participate in Classical humanism.

The fourth type of humanism is cultural, and it was once assumed as the core curriculum of any college worth the name: philosophy and art, music and language, and science. Although there have been inroads on the understanding of what ought to make up a liberal arts education, most universities still require a core requirement in these subjects, even if they sometimes seem to apologize for doing so. Ironically, social conservatives and social liberals would agree on this one kind of humanism. It would be difficult to find anyone in opposition. Although not everyone would use "humanism" to describe this education, there is passionate support among conservatives for retaining these subjects as the core of what an educated person needs to know.

Humanistic psychology is the fifth form of humanism. Humanistic psychology began in the latter part of the 20th century as a movement against behaviorism, psychoanalysis, empiricism and scientific trends in psychology. This is interesting since its progenitor, Renaissance humanism, actually promoted the use of the scientific method, including observation. In humanistic psychology, the uniqueness of the individual person including their experiences, awareness, and growth is emphasized. There is a good deal of stress placed on the necessity of change and development in human life.

The sixth form of humanism is religious humanism, which is the category into which Unitarian Universalist humanists belong. Religious humanism takes a position against supernaturalism, recognizes the value of scientific insights, and holds that orthodox religion can learn a lot from the understandings of the modem world.

As I pointed out, it is the contention of many UU thinkers and theologians that nearly ALL present Unitarian Universalists are religious humanists of one form or another. Yet Carol Wintermute notes in her essay, there are many different ways to be a religious humanist. There are atheist humanists, agnostic humanists, Christian humanists, Jewish humanists, Buddhist humanists (Buddhism is a very humanist religion, but that is another sermon.), pagan humanists, mystical humanists, and so on down the line.

I am reminded of a story that is told about psychologist William James who meets a sage from India. The sage told him that in the Hindu world view the universe rests on the backs of 8 celestial white elephants. "What do those elephants stand on?" asked the rationalist James. "Another elephant," came the reply. "And what is beneath that elephant?" asked James, and the answer, "Another." At this point, the Mahatma interrupted and said, "Dr. James, I must tell you, it's great white elephants all the way down." For UUs, it's some kind of humanism all the way down.

The seventh and final kind of humanism is that favorite whipping-post of the Religious Right, secular humanism. Secular humanism shares many attributes with religious humanism such as valuing of the intellect and science, and the emphasis on ethics and morality, but without any need whatsoever for religion or spirituality. A secular humanist congregation is thus a contradiction in terms. By definition, secular humanists do not join or form religious communities. However, my colleague Fred Muir says that secular humanism keeps religious humanism "honest"; calling us to reckon with doubt and skepticism and keeping our theology accountable.

All seven humanisms share some common characteristics. First, a fascination with and honoring of the human. Second, an understanding that as human beings, we bear a responsibility for our lives and for this world. And third, that we humans are put together in such a way that we CAN be responsible for the way we live our lives and for the world. All humanisms, of whatever variety, share these three threads.

When these humanisms come together, these common themes stand in stark contrast not only to orthodox Christianity, but to religious fundamentalism of all kinds. Religious fundamentalism insist that humanity is hopelessly depraved, inherently careless, helpless to improve, and incapable of responsibility. Therefore, all volition and control must be submitted to a divine or human authority figure. It is no wonder why John Weston says that humanism is the, "common currency of our movement." Common currency though should never be mistaken for orthodoxy or 'right thinking.'

It is unfortunate that all the different kinds of UU humanists don't always get along with another or even understand one another. Across our denomination many traditional UU humanists have expressed feelings of loss, dismay, or feeling left out for some years now. This was chronicled in a cover story in the UU World magazine for which I was quoted in a sidebar entitled "Ain't I a Humanist?" (Sullivan, Nov./Dec. 1997). It is revealing that the World's editor chose to title the article "The Marginalized Majority: UU Humanism in the 1990s."

I would hardly agree that UU humanism is marginalized. I'd say instead that UU humanism was fully institutionalized. It is certainly true that there is a new version of religious humanism in Unitarian Universalism today. It is a religious humanism that still values the role of science and the intellect, and continues to assert that orthodox religions must be transformed by modern insights. Today it is understood that these insights might include a broad range of ritual, practice, belief, story, myth, and study. UU humanism has changed, grown, and become more inclusive. I think that this is a good thing, although I understand and sympathize with those who do not agree.

I close this morning with hopeful words by Unitarian Universalist minister and proud humanist Fred Muir:

The new religious humanism uses the language of balance, of balancing left and right sides of the brain, of reconstructing dualism in order to honor the interdependent web, of breaking up (but not eliminating) the century-old mantra of reason, rationality, and responsibility with myth, soul, ritual, and spirit. This is a religious humanism for a new century, a new millennium. This will be the core of our Unitarian Universalist faith.

So might this be!  Amen — Shalom — Namaste — Blessed Be!

Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
9601 Cedar Lane, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4099
Tel: 301-493-8300    Fax: 301-897-5713
e-mail: office@CedarLane.org
Sunday Services at 9 and 11 a.m.
© 1998-2012, Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Webminister