An Address Delivered on 4 October 2009 at the Biennial Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Unitarian Universalist Association (ANZUUA) held at The Centre, Randwick, New South Wales - Copyright Ian Ellis-Jones 2009 - All Rights Reserved.

1. THE CHALLENGE FOR MODERN-DAY
UNITARIANS AND UNIVERSALISTS
RECLAIMING THE SACRED AND THE HOLY
The Rev. Dr Ian Ellis-Jones
BA, LLB (Syd), LLM, PhD (UTS), Dip Relig Stud (LCIS)
Senior Minister, Sydney Unitarian Church
An Address Delivered on 4 October 2009 at the Biennial Conference of the Australian and New Zealand
Unitarian Universalist Association (ANZUUA) held at The Centre, Randwick, New South Wales
Greetings, one and all.
At the outset, I should make it clear - and I make no apology for this - that I will,
throughout this address, be using the “God” word a far bit. Of course, the word
“God”, if one uses it at all, means different things to different people. For some,
there is no objective referent at all to the word “God”, and I respect that position
as well. As Krishnamurti used to say, “The word is not the thing.” It’s the reality
behind the word that matters.
For me, the word “God” refers to the Spirit of Life - the very livingness of all life,
the essential oneness of all life, and the self-givingness of life to itself so as to
perpetuate itself. I also use the word “God” to refer to our innate potential
perfectibility, as well as to what I regard as being the sacred, the holy. As regards
the latter, I find that sense of the sacred or holy essentially in the enchantment of
everyday life ... in the ordinary as opposed to the extraordinary, and in the natural
world as opposed to some supposed supernatural world.
Sir Julian Huxley, in an essay entitled “The New Divinity” in his compilation book
Essays of a Humanist, had this to say about the word “divine”, after first
reminding his readers that “the term divine did not originally imply the existence
of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interpret [our] experiences of
this quality”:

2. 2
For want of a better, I use the term divine, though this quality of divinity is
not truly supernatural is not truly supernatural but transnatural -- it grows
out of ordinary nature, but transcends it. The divine is what man finds
worthy of adoration, that which compels his worship: and during history it
evolves like everything else.”
Being what is referred to as a panentheist (God is the ground of all being, God is
in all things, and all things are in God; but all things are not God), I reject all
traditional notions of theism as well as the notion that there is a supernatural
order, level or dimension to life. I find the sacred or the holy in, as already
mentioned, the enchantment of everyday life, as well as in all of life, and
especially in those more enlightened souls who have blessed us with their
presence, teachings and example.
Now, even though I believe that there is only one order or level of reality, I truly
believe and submit that real religious or spiritual experience involves what Rudolf
Otto referred to as the “numinous”. In The Idea of the Holy Otto expressed his
opinion that, at the heart of religious or spiritual experience, there was this sense
of the numinous or the holy. The numinous experience was, according to Otto,
“inexpressible, ineffable". Otto saw the numinous or holy as a mysterium tremens
et fascinans, that is, a tremendous (read, awe- and fear-inspiring) and fascinating
mystery. The experience of the numinous or holy is, in the words of Otto,
a unique experience of confrontation with a power … “Wholly Other,”
outside of normal experience and indescribable in its terms; terrifying,
ranging from sheer demonic dread through awe to sublime majesty; and
fascinating, with irresistible attraction, demanding unconditional
allegiance.
Further, the experience, writes Otto,
grips or stirs the human mind. … The feeling of it may at times come
sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of
deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of
the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last
it dies away and the soul resumes its "profane," non-religious mood of
everyday experience. It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths
of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strongest
excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy. It has its
wild and demonic forms and can sink to an almost grisly horror and
shuddering.

3. 3
Otto then offers this definition of religion:
It is the positive response to this experience in thought (myth and
theology) and action (cult and worship) that constitutes religion.
In other words, it is not so much the experience of the numinous or holy that
constitutes religion but rather our response to the experience. Regrettably, most
of those associated with liberal religion have lost this sense of the holy, this realm
of the sacred, or the divine. Unless we regain it, we have no future at all. Later
on, I will suggest how we can move forward and meet the challenge.
Before so doing, I should also mention that there is another type of religious or
spiritual experience that is equally real, and it lies almost entirely in the moral
realm. The ethicist Felix Adler, in his little book Life and Destiny (1913), writes:
The experience to which I refer is essentially moral experience. It may be
described as a sense of subjection to imperious impulses which urge our
finite nature toward infinite issues; a sense of propulsions which we can
resist, but not disown; a sense of a power greater than ourselves, with
which, nevertheless, in essence we are one; a sense, in times of moral
stress, of channels opened by persistent effort, which let in a flood of
rejuvenating energy and puts us in command of unsuspected moral
resources; a sense, finally, of the complicity of our life with the life of
others, of living in them in no merely metaphorical signification of the
word; of unity with all spiritual being whatsoever.
Professor W. P. Montague, of Columbia University, refers in his book Belief
Unbound (1930) to religion as being
the acceptance neither of a primitive absurdity, nor of a sophisticated
truism, but of a momentous possibility – the possibility, namely, that what
is highest in spirit is also deepest in nature; that the ideal and the real are
at least to some extent identified, not merely evanescently in our own
lives, but enduringly in the universe itself
and also as
the faith that there is in nature an urge or power other than man himself
that makes for the kind of thing that man regards as good.
Now, most of those here today who are members or regular, or even irregular,
attendees of a Unitarian or Universalist church, fellowship or society would

4. 4
identify as Unitarians or Universalists. In some places, words “Unitarian” and
“Universalist” are conjoined, hence the expression “Unitarian Universalist”.
Some may not be sure what they are. All of you are welcome here today, for
Unitarianism, and Universalism are for all sincere and honest seekers after
spiritual truth who have love in their hearts and goodwill towards others.
I like both words - “Unitarian” and “Universalist” - because they both point to and
affirm a wholeness which is all-inclusive and all-embracing.
With its historical roots in early Judaism and Christianity, the religious philosophy
and movement known as Unitarianism came out of the Protestant Reformation
when many people began to claim the right to read and interpret the Bible for
themselves and the right to set their own conscience as a test of the teachings of
religion. The theological roots of Unitarianism may be found in 16th century
Europe, in particular, Hungary, Poland (where it flourished in that century) and
Romania, when some biblical scholars rejected the idea of the trinitarian
Christian God (“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”), claiming that a single God was
more consistent with the Bible. (“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.”
Dt 6:4.) Hence, the name Unitarian.
It was not so much the actual Doctrine of the Trinity that those who came to be
labeled Unitarians so much objected, but the Doctrine of the Deity (as opposed to
the essential Divinity) of Jesus Christ. Be that as it may, the word “Unitarian”
originally drew attention to an emphasis on the essential unity of God, rather than
God’s trinity or triplicity.
The Universalist denomination in the United States originated with John Murray
(1741-1815), a convert to Universalism as taught by the Methodist minister
James Relly (c.1722-1778) in England and who had been also greatly influenced
by the preaching of the Anglican minister George Whitefield (1714-1770) in
England. John Murray arrived in New Jersey in 1770. After preaching there and
in New York and New England, he settled in Gloucester, Massachusetts where in

5. 5
1779 he became pastor of the first Universalist church in the United States. The
movement spread from there, with other ministers, including the Baptist minister
Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797) and Hosea Ballou (1771-1852), the latter an
itinerant New England preacher who directed Universalism toward his own
Unitarian theology, playing a very important role in the early history of America
Universalism. Susan Jacoby, in her book Freethinkers: A History of American
Secularism, writes:
The ministers who led this transformation were American originals, men
of great passion and moderation, combining a philosophical commitment
to natural rights with a pragmatic reliance on empirical knowledge.
In 1961 the American Unitarian Association and The Universalist Church of
America merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (known as the
UUA), which comprises over 1,000 congregations across the USA. The UUA
works closely with other similar organizations in many other areas of the world
many of which belong to the umbrella organization known as the International
Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU) which, as most of you would be
aware, is a world council bringing together Unitarians, Universalists and Unitarian
Universalists.
As regards Australia, and my own Church in particular, the Sydney congregation
was formed in 1850, two years before what is now known as the Melbourne
Unitarian Peace Memorial Church was established, and four years before a
meeting of the Unitarian Christians of South Australia was held in Adelaide. The
Rev. George H. Stanley was appointed the first minister of the Sydney
congregation in 1853. The first church was in Macquarie Street, Sydney. In the
1870s the congregation moved to a new church in Liverpool Street, but that
church was destroyed by fire in 1936. Another church was built in Francis Street,
which was opened in 1940. In 1970 that church was demolished and, on the
same site, a new multi-storey building was later erected (and since extensively
renovated and modernized), which is the Sydney church’s present location. If I
had more time, I would refer to the early history of Unitarianism in the other
States of Australia, so please forgive me for that.

6. 6
There has never been any Universalist Church, in the strict North American
sense and tradition, in Australia. However, over the years, a few churches,
congregations and fellowships have from time to time, and right up to the
present, called themselves “Universalist” as opposed to “Unitarian”. Nothing
much turns on it.
Today, the word “Unitarian” in most places now points to our emphasis on the
essential unity of all life, and all persons, irrespective of whether or not we even
affirm any belief in a God in any traditional sense of the meaning of the word or
otherwise. As Unitarians, along with other religious liberals, we affirm that the
universe and all that exists within it are one interrelated and interdependent
whole, such that everything and everyone are rooted in the same universal, life-
creating ultimate reality.
The word “Universalist” originally affirmed the belief, held by most early
Christians, by the way - right up to the 6th century CE - that no soul is forever lost
from the all-conquering love of God. No soul - whether male or female, Buddhist
or Baptist, Mormon or Muslim, Jew, atheist, gay or straight. Thus, belief in any
specific Christian doctrine or dogma was not required.
Unitarianism and Universalism were very similar in theology except that most
Universalists, at least initially, still accepted the divinity of Jesus, a doctrine
ordinarily rejected by most Unitarians. Said Thomas Starr King (1824-1864),
who at various times was both a Universalist and a Unitarian minister:
The Universalists think God is too good to damn them forever; the
Unitarians think they are too good to be damned forever.
What L. B. Fisher, a Universalist pastor who for many years was also the editor
of the Universalists’ denominational newsletter The Leader, once said about the
Universalists is equally applicable to the stance of most religious liberals:
Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true
answer to give to this is that we do not stand at all, we move … We do
not stand still, nor do we defend any immovable positions, theologically

7. 7
speaking, and we are therefore harder to count or to form into imposing
bodies. We grow and we march, as all living things forever must do. The
main questions with Universalists are not where we stand but which way
are we moving. Our main interest is to perceive what is true progress and
to keep our movement in line with that.
Today, the word “Universalist” affirms that the most powerful force in the word –
indeed, in the whole universe – is love, strange as it may seem. That love, which
is the fundamental underlying universal principle of all religion, is infinite,
adorable, unchangeable, but entirely incomprehensible. Universalism also affirms
that not only is there a universality of spiritual principles and spiritual experience
underlying most, if not all, religions (sensibly interpreted, of course, and stripped
of outmoded accretions and superstitions) which cannot be claimed as the
exclusive possession of any one religion, but, more importantly, there is a
universality in values that are quite independent of any or all religion. They are
the universal values of honesty, integrity, justice, grace, forgiveness and
compassion … also, that truth, properly understood, transcends national, cultural,
racial, even faith boundaries.
Both Unitarianism and Universalism affirm that the Universe is the Body of God,
and therefore is, or at least ought to be, of ultimate and paramount concern to all
of us. Now, whichever one or other, or both, or neither of the two labels we chose
to identify ourselves with is entirely up to each one of us, consistent with our
longstanding heritage of religious freedom and tolerance.
Clarence Russell Skinner (1881-1949) was the most influential Universalist
minister of his generation. He wrote a wonderful book entitled The Social
Implications of Universalism (1915). What he said about Universalism applies
equally to Unitarianism. Skinner wrote that modern religion must sanctify the
world. Our dominant motive and driving force must be, not to escape from earthly
existence into some supposed world above and beyond this earthly existence of
ours, but to make earthly existence as abundant and happy as it can be made,
notwithstanding all of the terrible things that happen in this world on a daily basis.
No matter how broken we may be, we can be restored to fullness of life. That is
very much the Universalist part of our heritage.

8. 8
So, we have this wonderful word Unitarianism, which affirms the unity - that is,
the essential oneness - of all life, all persons, and all things. As I have said so
often in this Church, the One becomes the many so that the many may know
themselves to be one. Then, we have the wonderful word Universalism, which
affirms and promotes the universal restitution or restoration of all things and
people – that is, all things and people will eventually be restored to God, or their
Source, or Original Essence. This is referred to in the Bible, in Acts 3:21, as the
“restitution of all things”, or the “restoration of all” (apokatastasis panton). In
Greek astronomical and philosophical literature apokatastasis refers to the actual
re-establishment of the order of the universe. By what means? Another Big Bang
or a series of Big Bangs? Who knows for sure? I am also reminded of what we
have learned from quantum mechanics, namely, that the universe is one,
indivisible and conscious entity of which the observer is an essential part. So, for
the adjustment of all things, we give thanks.
As Unitarians, Universalists, or Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many
sources. Today, I want to draw primarily, but not exclusively, from the Judeo-
Christian tradition, and the Bible, sensibly and liberally interpreted. In fact, I draw
from a number of different traditions and sources, and that is why I am a
Unitarian.
Now, in the 25th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, in the New Testament of the
Christian Scriptures, we meet what has been called the “Anonymous Christ”, and
we read that the spirit or personality of Jesus - the friend of sinners, the
champion of the poor, and the healer of the sick - can be experienced even today
as a living presence, for he comes to us, and visits us, in our home and in our
community. We encounter this spirit or personality of Jesus in our interactions
with others. Everyone we meet, everyone we serve, is in the image of Jesus, a
personification of the Divine. Roman Catholics understand this so much better
than Protestants. Yes, the Anonymous Christ, as it is known, comes to us in so
many ways, and we fail to recognize that Jesus’ so-called incarnation continues

9. 9
all the time, in us and in other people. We read about the Anonymous Christ in
Matthew 25:34-40:
Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed
by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since
the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to
eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger
and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick
and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry
and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we
see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?”
The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the
least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
Jesus’ followers were originally known as “people of the way”. Jesus, in his vision
of the Anonymous Christ, offers us a vision and a challenge. The call to follow is
not a call to worship Jesus. He never sought nor wanted that. No, the Way of
Jesus is a call to follow Jesus’ path, to live as he lived, and to serve others as he
did.
Unitarianism and Universalism offer what I believe is true Christianity, even if we
choose not to identify our particular religion, philosophy, church, fellowship or
society as being a Christian one, or ourselves as Christians. True it is - and a
good thing too, in my respectful opinion - that Unitarianism or Unitarian
Universalism is best described as a post-Christian religion whose members
comprise some liberal Christians, humanists, agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, neo-
pagans, and so on … and so may it be. Yes, let us rejoice heartily in our
diversity. I do. But, as I see it, the Unitarian (or Universalist) Church is still a
Christian Church in one very important sense, and it is this. As I see it,
Christianity is the true religion of Jesus – the religion that Jesus taught, and by
which Jesus himself lived and died. Jesus called it the “gospel of God”, and told
us that the Kingdom of God was within us (see Lk 17:21).

10. 10
Now, this is my point. Many Buddhists I know, even many atheists and other
secularists, live lives that are so much more nobly and deeply and closely
moulded after that of Jesus than those fundamentalist and evangelical Christians
who claim, ever so proudly, to have been washed in the saving Blood of the
Lamb – a perverse and pernicious corruption and distortion of true Christianity if
ever there was one – and who have forsaken the true human Jesus of the
Gospels (who never used any language of sacrifice, bloodshed, propitiation or
expiation) and who have substituted for him a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics
and pagan philosophy. I repeat, many people, who would not identify as
Christians, are real followers of the way of Jesus. There is a wonderful hymn,
written by Marguerite Pollard, in The New St Alban Hymnal, produced by the
Liberal Catholic Church in Australia, which contains this wonderful verse:
And there are some who love him well,
yet know not it is he they love;
he tends the holy fire within
and draws them to the heights above.
Jesus’ purported utterance, “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30), must be seen
in its total context. Indeed, on the contrary, Jesus spoke of the Father, who sent
him, as God, and as the only God: see, eg, Jn 17:3 (“This is life eternal, that they
might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”).
Jesus, after having said, “I and my Father are one,” gave his disciples distinctly
to understand that he did not mean one substance, equal in power and glory, but
one only in affection and design, as clearly appears from the prayer he offers to
his Father in their behalf - “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,
and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (Jn 17:21). Jesus was saying,
“The father is in me, and I am in the father”, which is a wonderfully panentheistic
and Unitarian view of God. (Similarly, Jesus is also reported to have said, “I am
in my Father: and you in me, and I in you” (Jn 14;20).)
As for Jesus’ reported utterance, “no one comes to the father except by me” (Jn
14:6), my view is the same as that of the great Methodist preacher Dr Leslie
Weatherhead, which is also that of the Jesus Seminar – I don’t believe that Jesus

11. 11
ever said that. (Just like today’s Jesus Seminar, Thomas Jefferson, working in
the White House in 1804, embarked on the task of putting the blue pencil through
the Gospels in order to extract the authentic message of Jesus. I’m not afraid to
do the same thing.)
Now, even if Jesus did say, “no one comes to the father except by me”, I am sure
he was referring to his way of life, his teaching, nothing more than that. As you
know, there appear to be a sizable number of Christians who, when reading this
verse, interpret it mean that Jesus is God and that no one can get to heaven
except if they worship Jesus and accept him as their Saviour and Lord. The
popular perception that this verse claims that Jesus requires our worship in order
for us to receive salvation is not the intended meaning of this verse. However, in
order for us to recognize this fact it is necessary to study its context. If we were to
back up a little and read from the beginning of John 14, we find that just before
Jesus spoke these words, he said:
In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not
so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place)
for you. (Jn 14:2.)
The above statement is quite clear. This is what Jesus is saying here. He said
that in God's mansion there are "many" rooms. Jesus purports to guide to only
one of them. The countless other rooms were apparently reserved for other tribes
and nations if they would obey their respective messengers. However, Jesus was
telling his followers that they need not worry themselves about the other rooms.
Anyone from among his people who wished to enter into the room which was
reserved for them could only do so if they followed Jesus and obeyed his
command. So Jesus confirmed that he was going to prepare "a" mansion and not
"all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Further, the verse clearly states that
Jesus was the "way" to a mansion. He did not say that he is the "destination"
which would be the case if he were God. This is indeed confirmed in John 10:9
where Jesus tells us that he is the “door" to the “pasture." In other words, he is
the "prophet" who guides his people to "heaven" (see also Jn 12:44). How
wonderfully Universalist! Finally, remember:

12. 12
Not every one that says to me (Jesus), 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven. (Mt
7:21)
Now, what has happened to Unitarianism and Universalism worldwide, and
especially in the United States of America, but also, I fear, in some parts of
Australia. Now, as regards Unitarian Universalism itself, as practised under the
auspices of the UUA, some persons associated with that movement, including
some Unitarian Universalist ministers themselves, do not see their movement as
a religion per se. For example, Unitarian Universalist minister Beverley Boke, in
a sermon entitled “This Cherished Chosen Faith” delivered at the First Universalist
Society, in Hartland, Vermont, on 12 January 2003, said:
Is Unitarian Universalism a religion? Originally it was - rather they [ie the
Unitarians and the Universalists] were. We come from two distinct and
different root stalks. Grafted onto the Mosaic faiths - Judaism,
Christianity and Islam - are branches of many denominations. Judaism
has many. Islam has many. And Christianity has many - many more than
either Judaism or Islam.
Two of those branches were Universalism and Unitarianism. In their
infancy they could be summarized like this: Universalists disagreed with
Christians who said some people would go to Heaven and some to Hell
when they died. Universalists believed that all people would be
saved. They believed that through the atonement of Jesus all sins could
be forgiven. They did not believe that you'd go straight to Heaven if you
had a lot to answer for. Universalists were smarter than that. But they did
believe that you would, ultimately, be saved. God, they believed, was too
good to send his children into everlasting torment.
Unitarians believed that God had but one aspect, one nature. They
disagreed with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus was a human being sent
by God to teach human beings about love. Jesus showed us how to
live. Anyone could attain the level of goodness Jesus had attained. That's
why God sent Jesus to dwell among men and women, so that he would
provide the model for our conduct. Human beings, they believed, were too
good for God to send into everlasting torment.
In [1961], the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church
of America merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Not, mind you, the Unitarian Universalist Church of America. Not church,
at all. And since that time the traditional language of church has struggled
to stay alive in this denomination, this association. Sin... faith... religion...
church... prayer... God... salvation, saved! All these words and others

13. 13
were so laden with what people didn't believe in that we stopped using
them.
Our own churches and fellowships must offer much more than just a “social-
political-ethical system” and some form of tired old secular humanism with a little
added oomph and emption. Dr Norman Vincent Peale wrote in one of his many
books that people want more than just the “stone of social action”, they want -
please forgive me - the “bread of life”. We are verging perilously close to
becoming a totally innocuous and ineffectual influence in Australian and New
Zealand life. If Unitarianism, Universalism, Unitarian Universalism, or whatever
you want to call it, ceases to be a religion in the true sense of the word, or loses
its primary spiritual thrust, and simply becomes a social or political movement for
change, as it appears to have become in some places, both here and abroad,
then we have no right to call ourselves religious or even spiritual.
I am always bemused, and a little saddened, when I hear a person say, “I’m
spiritual, but not religious,” as if religion and spiritually were diametrically
opposed. Religion is simply organised spirituality. Spirituality refers to that
domain concerned with the largeness of life where there is communal celebration
of some Power, Presence, Being or Principle other than self where, in the words
of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, “mind, personality, purpose, ideals, values and
meanings dwell”.
Yes, I deeply fear at times that we have lost almost all sense of the sacred, the
holy, the numinous, and that is an awful tragedy, indeed it is a scandalous state
of affairs.
Now, whether we identity as Unitarians or Universalists, or Unitarian
Universalists, or something else (for example, Buddhists or Humanists), and
irrespective of whether or not we believe in the existence of God (however
defined), what Jesus referred to as the Kingdom of God, and its establishment
here on earth, should, I respectfully submit to all of you today, be a matter of
paramount importance to all of us ... right now. Indeed, I truly believe that what

14. 14
Jesus referred to as the Kingdom of God (or the Kingdom of Heaven), or what
the writer of John’s Gospel referred to as “eternal life”, is, and can rightly be
referred to as, the “Realm of the Sacred” or the “Beloved Community”.
The “Beloved Community”. I like those words, and some of you may prefer them
to the more Biblical expressions “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven”. Dr
Martin Luther King Jr used that expression a lot in his speeches and writings. I
may be wrong on this, but I think the earliest mention of the expression “Beloved
Community” was from the American objective idealist philosopher Josiah Royce
(1855-1916), whose main writings such as The Religious Aspects of Philosophy,
The World and the Individual and The Problem of Christianity were published
before World War I. Royce also used the words “universal community” to refer to
the same reality. In The Problem of Christianity (1913) Royce stated:
Since the office of religion is to aim towards the creation on earth of the
Beloved Community, the future task of religion is the task of inventing and
applying arts which shall win all over to unity and which shall overcome
their original hatefulness by the gracious love, not merely of individuality
but of communities. Judge every social device, every proposed reform,
every national and every local enterprise by one test. Does this help
towards the coming of the universal community?
Please understand me. I am not advocating a return to some form of Unitarian
Christianity, although liberal Christians should always be made welcome in our
churches and fellowships along with all others who have love in their hearts. All
that I am advocating is that unless we embrace and promulgate a positive, life-
affirming, transformative religion with reason based on a spirituality without
superstition that meets the particular needs of modern day individuals as well as
Australian society at large, then we will cease to exist in next to no time. Indeed, I
would submit that we would deserve such a fate.
Now, if our only or primary concern be, say, Amnesty International, Greenpeace,
global warming, the plight of refugees, socio-economic reform or whatever -
admirable organizations and causes they may be – then, in my respectful
opinion, we ought to devote all of our time and effort to such groups. Unitarianism

15. 15
is, or ought to be, much more than that. It is for those who wish to concern
themselves with faith-based ideas, beliefs, practices and activities directed
towards a celebration of that which is perceived to be not only ultimate but also
divine, holy or sacred. The Kingdom of God (irrespective of whether or not we
choose to use that particular expression, or even believe in God whether in a
traditional sense or otherwise), or the Realm of the Sacred, is, or ought to be, an
opportunity for deep self-reflection, self-abandonment, self-surrender and self-
sacrifice … and for developing and experiencing a sense of the numinous.
Now, don’t get me wrong. The true message of all religion, sensibly interpreted,
is that it is better to give than to receive, and to love rather than hate, that getting
rich at the expense of others is evil, that oppressing, subjugating, exploiting and
manipulating others is evil, that destroying the planet and all that is sacred and
holy is evil, and that helping others (especially those who are marginalized and
otherwise unable to help themselves), working for justice and to end oppression,
and promoting harmony, peace and goodwill is good. However, true religion or
spirituality is also about the birth and the ongoing rebirth, that is, the bringing into
daily conscious existence the Kingdom of God - the Realm of the Sacred, or the
Beloved Community - which is something fundamentally spiritual (that is, non-
materialistic) in nature, even though its various manifestations are entirely
practical, physical and earthly. We are here to build this kingdom, and it is in the
doing, rather than the questioning, that the truth reveals itself, and the kingdom is
made manifest ... a kingdom “not of this word” (Jn 18:36). The religion of most
Australian, and I dare say, New Zealanders as well, is materialism, and
consumerism, and if religions are to serve any purpose at all they must, in the
words of the Rev. Cathal Courtney, a Unitarian minister in Glasgow and
Aberdeen, and author of the wonderful book Towards Beloved Community, be
“harbingers of non-materialism”.
Courtney, in an article entitled “Move ‘Towards Beloved Community’” and
published in the October 20, 2007 edition of The Inquirer, wrote:

16. 16
The great weakness of liberal religion is a fear of being illiberal that frequently leads to
the avoidance of what we might call the substantial questions. Afraid that the
‘secularised’ mass will feel further alienated by the use of religious language, the liberal
religionist frequently thinks that by removing religious language from their vocabulary
they will make what they represent more appealing. The result is a meaningless free-for-
all, an anchorless voyage requiring no commitment or dedication, an à la carte
spirituality that requires nothing from nobody because nothing is important, a non-
conformity for non-conformity’s sake, an abdication of the call to search deeply for the
meaning of our lives, even if that meaning is meaningless by its very nature. The clear
benefit of such religion is that it creates a place of comfort in a world that knows only too
well how to reject. The disadvantage, however, is that we reduce religion to the lowest
common denominator in order to avoid offence.
Forget “end times” theories. Let us make this Beloved Community both a present
and a future reality … until that day on which there will be no sunset and no
dawning, yes, that day of universal restitution and restoration of all things and
people, when all things and people will eventually be restored to their Source and
Original Essence. The age in which we live has been variously described
philosophically and ecclesiastically as being Post-Denominationalist, Post-
Modernist and Post-Christian, among other things, and there is truth in all of that.
Theodore Parker (1810-1860), the great American Unitarian minister, said this:
The church that is to lead this century [Parker was talking about the 19th
century] will not be a church creeping on all fours, mewling and whining,
its face turned down, its eyes turned back. It must be full of the brave
spirit of the day, keeping also the good of times past.
It demands, as never before, freedom for itself, usefulness in its
institutions, truth in its teachings, and beauty in its deeds….
Let us have a church for the whole person: truth for the mind, good works
for the hands, love for the heart; and for the soul, that aspiring after
perfection, that unfaltering faith in God which, like lightening in the clouds,
shines brightest when elsewhere it is most dark.