In the first place, I want to thank Storm for the link to this sermon, which was quite interesting.
As for its impression on me, there is a sense in which I can agree with what the reverend has said- certainly in spirit. I think she is correct to observe that the meaning of the word "belief" is different for us than for many of our spiritual predecessors, and that Western religious thought has taken a peculiar path in the history of religion that is not without some serious problems. The words "faith" and "belief" are not synonymous (though related), but are often used as such in the Christian world.
I believe that there is an influential and impoverished version of Christian teaching regarding salvation that amounts to a "salvation by syllables" (to use a phrase I take from Marcus Borg). There was a time when I subscribed to such a view and I think it is toxic to spiritual growth.
That being said, from a Christian and Catholic perspective, I can not at all agree that belief is opposed to religion.
I am also not entirely clear in what sense she is opposed to "belief". Conviction in the existence of God? Surely, even as a Unitarian, she has certain if but vague and very "open" beliefs about a divine reality. Does belief translate into a toxin as soon as it becomes specific- as soon as it becomes " one in substance with the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" ?
If there really is a God, can anything be really known about Him? Or is religion a mere toying with feel good imagery? Is theology the pursuit of right speech about God (which surely means knowing when not to speak) ? Or is it, in the end, all guess work or equally valid (equally meaningless) verbage?
Basic questions arise, such as "is God rational"? If our religion is based on faith in a divine reality, whether or not we believe that divine reality is accessible to reason or governed itself by reason has enormous consequences. Belief, and what we believe, is significant here.
Furthermore I am certain that the Unitarian community is in step with the best of secular humanism- but am I wrong in thinking that the theological girder they will give to humanistic aims will surely also be in step with notions such as "God is love", or the famous euology to love given by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians? What is the basis for the Unitarian belief that God, however defined, is at all relevant or good for human beings? Somewhere along the line, beliefs about God will reveal themselves as important for consideration- and false beliefs will surely be rejected even by the least, or even contra, dogmatic
The title of the sermon seems to challenge the idea that any religion has the right to the conviction that they understand the divine in a way to which they must be faithful, and that they bear a message of truth which is intended for the world. With this, I do not agree. While the world "evangelical" often has an (understandably) tarnished sound today, it literally means "good news". A foundational idea for Christianity is that it is empowered with a message that has universal value- that the salvation which is available for me is present for every one. This is why it is not, at its base, esoteric or mystical. It does not teach a Gnosticism for which salvation is an option for the privileged few, or an intellectual, theosophic adventure for the educated. At the level of salvation, is quite ordinary for the ordinary.
The Gospel- the evangelium- is built on belief. It is the same belief which animates the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity. The belief that the agape love of God for man is revealed in the total self giving of Christ is the basis for living for human beings ourselves. We must move and live, as it were, from the fountain head of God's own love for us- but that living is made possible by the belief that this love exists for us, that it was demonstrated for us, and so we confess our faith through belief which, throughout history, has taken great expression in the Creeds and has been defined in the dogmas.
Without belief there is no Christian religion. It must be a belief animated by faith- loving trust in God and his self communication in Jesus Christ. The kind of belief which I am eager to see the Christian Church avoid is the kind which closes itself off to thought, and, living in the absence of thought, therefore goes without compassion and becomes cold. But belief as such can not be avoided without a general collapse of the Christian faith because there are for us a set of divinely revealed mysteries. There are many different and valid ways of trying to grasp these same mysteries in thought. The task of theology is to pursue of the objects of faith- our beliefs, the mysteries of the faith- and to try and explore these mysteries by the power of the human intellect. This is what leaves us open to affirm that God is Creator, while not being opposed to evolution if that is what science authentically discovers. This is the kind of theological diversity which I think is consonant with the Christian religion.
Belief, properly approached, opens up the mind for the exploration of the divine reality. A complete lack of belief leaves us in the abyss of God's mystery or, from another point of view, merely becomes an indiffernece to Him.
It is true, we hold to belief though faith- but faith is not opposed to thought. Though belief stands before thought and is affirmed on the grounds of faith, it becomes, as it were, like the moon shinning through the midnight forest. It lights our path and we pursue it on the horizon, but in the end we can never really "own" it. It reamins elusive, but in chasing it we leave behind a trail of cleared out brush, we make discernible pathways through the forest of thought.
This is anyways, how I tend to view "belief".
