Please click the link to watch Rev. Cynthia’s video recording of this sermon.

For Christian churches following the Gregorian calendar, tomorrow is Epiphany. The Western churches will tell the story of the wise men who said the child was King of the Jews: “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him,” (Matthew 2:1-2).

Eastern churches will tell the story of Jesus’s baptism: “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John…

“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased,” (Matthew 3:13,16-17).

King of the Jews or Messiah or Son of God. These are traditional ways that Christian churches have defined Jesus. The epiphany is that he is recognized as the Messiah, or in Greek, as Christ and as Son of God. 

Unitarians and Universalists began as Christian denominations, but we would not be classified as one today. We do have members of our denomination who would define themselves as Christians. A number of years ago someone in one of my former congregations said she would describe herself as a Catholic Unitarian Universalist. Immediately another member of the congregation protested that that combination was not possible.

Since I overheard the conversation, I stepped in. I said that there is only one traditional Christian view that a Unitarian Universalist cannot hold and that is that people who don’t believe what Christians believe about Jesus are condemned to hell. Any other beliefs about Jesus are quite fine within our non-creedal denomination.

Unitarian Universalists have a history with Jesus. As I said, Unitarians and Universalists began as Christian denominations. Unitarians didn’t believe Jesus was God. They believed God was a Unity and not a Trinity. Universalists didn’t believe that a loving God was sending anyone to hell; everyone would be saved, universal salvation.

There are three historical Unitarian sermons and a Universalist treatise that lay out some of the early Unitarian and Universalist views of Jesus. In 1819, in a sermon at the First Unitarian Church of Baltimore, William Ellery Channing laid out some of the beliefs of Unitarian Christianity. He said of the Bible, “We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible…. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, and figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the literal sense… and consequently demanding more continual exercise of judgment.”

He said of God, “We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God.”

He said of Jesus, “Having thus given our views of the unity of God, I proceed in the second place to observe, that we believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we are, and equally distinct from the one God….” (not God and man, just man; William Ellery Channing 1819 Speech – Channing Memorial Church, Unitarian Universalist, Ellicott City, MD).

The second historical Unitarian sermon was given by a Transcendentalist, most of whom were Unitarians. It is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1838 Harvard Divinity School Address. Of Jesus, Emerson said, “Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being there…. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, ‘I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.’ But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages!” (Divinity School Address – Ralph Waldo Emerson).

The last of the three historical Unitarian sermons is Theodore Parker’s 1841 “The Transient and the Permanent in Christianity,” in which Parker said the transient were doctrines about Jesus and the permanent was the teaching of Jesus to love God and one’s neighbor.

Parker said of Jesus, “He told what he saw—the Truth; he lived what he felt—a life of Love. The truth he brought to light must have been always the same before the eyes of all-seeing God, nineteen centuries before Christ, or nineteen centuries after him. A life supported by the principle and quickened by the sentiment of religion, if true to both, is always the same thing in Nazareth or New England. Now that divine man received these truths from God; was illumined more clearly by ‘the light that lighteneth every man’; combined or involved all the truths of Religion and Morality in his doctrine, and made them manifest in his life,” (Parker – The Transient and Permanent in Christianity).

Those are the three historical Unitarian sermons. The historical Universalist treatise is Hosea Ballou’s 1805 “Treatise on the Atonement.” He wrote in part, “The plan of redemption, as held by many, may be reduced to the following compendium. God, from all eternity, foreseeing that man would sin, provided a Mediator for a certain part of his posterity, who should suffer the penalty of the law for them, and that those elect ones, chosen by God from the rest of mankind, will alone be benefited by the atonement; that in order that the sacrifice might be adequate to the crime for which the sinner was condemned to everlasting or endless suffering, God himself assumed a body of flesh and blood, such as the delinquent was constituted in, and suffered the penalty of the law by death, and arose from the dead. By this process, the demand of the law was completely answered, and the debt due to Divine Justice, by the elect, was fully and amply paid. But that this atonement does not affect those who were not elected as objects of mercy, but that they are left to suffer endlessly for what Adam did before they were born. It is true that they are a little cautious about saying that God himself absolutely died! But they say that Christ, who was crucified, was really God himself, which must, in effect, amount to the same thing. And in fact if the Infinite did not suffer death, the whole plan fails, for it is by an infinite sacrifice that they pretend to satisfy an infinite dissatisfaction.

“Why the above ideas should ever have been imbibed by men of understanding and study, I can but scarcely satisfy myself; their absurdities are so glaring that it seems next to impossible that men of sobriety and sound judgment should ever imbibe them or avoid seeing them,” (Treatise on Atonement | Erroneous Theories of Atonement).

Those are our most famous historical documents. Channing, Emerson, Parker and Ballou would have all called themselves Christians, but, as I said, today Unitarian Universalism would not be considered a Christian denomination. By the end of the nineteenth century, there were Unitarians who were saying what one believed or did not believe about God or Jesus didn’t matter so much as how one lived. Deeds, not creeds. Humanists were beginning to be included in the denomination.

By the mid-twentieth century, there were Universalists who were expanding what they meant by universalism. In a biography of Kenneth Patton on the website Dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist Biography, we are told, “In 1949 Patton was invited to become minister of the Charles Street Meeting House, an experimental church in Boston created by Clinton Lee Scott and the Massachusetts Universalist Convention to revitalize Universalism and to reinstate a Universalist presence in Boston. Since Universalists’ traditional message, that a loving God would not condemn anyone to hell, had been accepted by other denominations, Universalists needed a new focus and a wider scope. Patton’s fifteen-year ministry redefined the meaning of the word ‘Universalism’ by bringing the arts of all religions and cultures into ‘a religion for one world,’” (Patton, Kenneth Leo – Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography).

The American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America merged on May 12, 1961. In “A History Lesson: the Consolidation of the Unitarian and Universalist Faiths” by John Cummins, he shares some of the problems in getting to that point.

He writes, “One Back Bay matron was heard to sniff that Universalists were ‘nothing but Baptists who could read!’ Universalists complained that Unitarians didn’t feel they’d had a good sermon unless they didn’t quite understand it themselves…. all feared the loss of identity. While the simple name of United Liberal Church might seem logical, it was clear that both denominational names had to be included in an appellation, which, to this day, remains a bit awkward and too lengthy to conveniently write on a check. And so we settle, at least among ourselves, for calling ourselves ‘UUs.’ As merger grew closer, a host of issues and their advocates grew more intense. Before final ratification, no less than 23 amendments were made to the merger agreement. We love amendments! Particularly fraught was the 1959 General Assembly in which the greatest debate was whether to add specific reference to Christianity in Article II, which outlined the principles and purposes of the new UUA. The two general assemblies met separately; they met together; they met late into the night; but in the joint session, there was only reference to ‘the universal truths taught by the great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition.’” (010621_history_lesson.pdf).

In other words, we no longer defined ourselves as a Christian denomination.

Those of you who follow denominational news may know that Article II of the Bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association is where we attempt to lay out what unites us as a denomination without a shared creed. The words finally agreed to at the merger were changed in the 1980s largely at the behest of women in the denomination, who objected to language that referred to men and brotherhood. In an article in our denominational magazine, “The UU World,” at the end of 2000, titled “How the UUA’s Principles and Purposes were shaped and how they’ve shaped Unitarian Universalism,” Warren Ross wrote, “In 1981, a nonsexist revision of the Principles and Purposes drafted by various women’s groups was presented to the General Assembly. It caused great uneasiness, especially among UU Christians, who saw it as tantamount to writing them out of the UUA. A group of ministers circulated a letter expressing concern about the lack of any reference to UUism’s Christian roots. It added that ‘the impending debate on whether or not to amend [the Principles] so as to eliminate the word ‘God’ has every prospect of becoming the kind of contest in which, regardless of who wins, our Association will lose. … We believe that it is time to recognize and empower that pluralism which we are.”

The ministers called for open dialogue and the appointment of a committee to study the situation…. one committee member, the Rev. Harry Hoehler, came up with a solution to the problem that had created controversy both at the 1960 meetings and again in 1981: whether to refer to the deity and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Hoehler suggested dividing the statement into two parts: first, the Seven Principles, followed by references to five “living traditions we share.” (A sixth tradition, earth-centered religions, was added to the statement in 1995.)

No one objected to language about the “’Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love’ when it appeared as part of an uncontroversial summary of historical influences on UUism,” (uuworld.org : how the uu principles and purposes were adopted).

In June 2024, Article II was updated again. The word God no longer appears. Neither does reference to Jewish and Christian tradition. Love is still there in these words: “Love is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values. We are accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of Love.”

As a denomination that now includes not just the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship and Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness, but also the Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, the Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship, the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association, and a developing Muslim UU group, the section of Article II that speaks of our sources or inspirations now says, “We draw upon, and are inspired by, sacred, secular, and scientific understandings that help us make meaning and live into our values. These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. We respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which these sources were created and are currently practiced. Grateful for the experiences that move us, aware of the religious ancestries we inherit, and enlivened by the diversity which enriches our faith, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom,” (Article II Purposes and Covenant_Final as of GA 2024.pdf).

This may have sounded more like a history lesson than a sermon, but I want to make it clear that the story you tell about Jesus or choose not to tell is perfectly acceptable within the broad walls of Unitarian Universalism. As long as you don’t believe that the rest of us have to believe what you believe, you are welcome here.

Our denomination is not united by creed but covenant. UU minister Lisa Ward puts it this way: “A covenant is not a definition of a relationship; it is the framework for our relating. A covenant leaves room for chance and change, it is humble toward evolution. It claims: I will abide with you in this common endeavor, be present as best as I can in our becoming. This calls for a level of trust, courage and sacrifice that needs to be nurtured, renewed and affirmed on a regular basis.

“A creed creates a static truth, something that does not incorporate new insights and realities.
“A covenant is a dance of co-creation, keeping in step with one another in the flow of our lives.

“A creed seeks uniformity and a unison voice.
“A covenant seeks harmony and a shared voice. Sometimes we may arrive at a unison, but it is not required.

“A creed gives authority to the statement.
“A covenant gives authority to shared intention.

“A creed creates an “us” and “them.”
“A covenant invites relationship.

“A creed is a prescription that must be relied on.
“A covenant relies on the treasures of shared truth.

“The overall trust within this covenant is in the Truth (Capital T): something which no one person can fully see, yet something which each and every person can come to know—in glimpses, in another’s story, in epiphanies. Truth is ever-changing in our seeking to understand because of our limited perspectives—we grow into a deeper sense of the meaning of all things when we take our journeys seriously, with full heart and mind.

“The courage within this covenant is in the acceptance and celebration of life, with all of its challenges, pain, ironies and joys. And the sacrifice within this covenant is in the letting go of dogma, of assumptions, of control—and giving over to a greater wisdom which comes to us in bits and pieces. “The task of this covenant is to take responsibility for the freedom we espouse. We know that we are interconnected and that what we do creates ripples of hope or despair, of affirmation or negation. What we do with and for one another is powerful and beyond our imagining,” (A Covenant Invites Relationship | WorshipWeb | UUA.org).

If you’ve appreciated this sermon, please text to give or visit our Give Now page to support the UUCSH Share the Plate efforts to assist those in need.