The Fundamental Principles of the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens (Unitarians – Religious Community of Free Faith)

On Sunday morning I had a brief conversation with a member of the Cambridge Unitarian gathering about the complex history of the German Unitarians which has been shaped by many historical fractures and post-war realignments. Today, the spectrum encompasses a wide array of beliefs, ranging from the traditional, Protestant-leaning theology of the Unitarische Kirche in Berlin to the broad secular-humanist networks of the Bund Freireligiöser Gemeinden. Between them both sits the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens (Unitarians – Religious Community of Free Faith). Distinguishing themselves from both dogmatic Christianity and strict atheism, this lay-led community embraces a liberal, pantheistic worldview grounded in personal ethical responsibility, democratic consensus, and a deep reverence for the interconnectedness of all life. 

I know from various conversations I have had over the years with German Unitarians of various kinds, that my great free-religious hero, Imaoka Shin’ichirō (1881-1988), had a big influence on some members involved with the latter two organisations. Knowing this, a couple of years ago, I took a close look at the Fundamental Principles of the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens, and I was positively struck by the close relationship that clearly exists between their thinking and that of Imaoka-sensei. However, for various reasons, I didn’t take this line of thought further, but since yesterday I’ve worked up a translation of their Fundamental Principles as found in a commentary written to accompany them. You can find the original German of this text at this link, and as always with any translation on this blog, if native readers spot any mistakes, I’be be extremely grateful to receive them. I’ve aimed for an accurate, but nevertheless, idiomatic British English translation. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I had whilst working slowly, and I have to say, meditatively, through them. 

—o0o— 

Explanation of the Fundamental Principles

To provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental principles, Prof. Dr. Hans-Dietrich Kahl, then-head of the Spiritual Council at the time of their adoption, wrote a comprehensive commentary. Its aim was to make visible the many reflections behind these concise principles and thereby encourage debate and dialogue.

The commentary was coordinated with the Spiritual Council (Geistiger Rat) and first appeared in six consecutive issues of the magazine unitarische blätter (3/96–2/97), as well as in a special edition for the 1997 Unitarian Day in Hameln. This commentary has now been revised and formally adapted by Dorothea Kaufmann.

Idea and Origin of the Fundamental Principles

The fundamental principles of the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens e. V. represent something unusual within our cultural sphere. They do not put forward a binding doctrine that all members – or indeed all people – are expected to believe, perhaps as some form of ‘supernatural revelation’. Instead, they are understood as statements formulated by human beings, which have crystallised as suitable for a community through a democratic consensus-building process; they explicitly allow for personal additions, and even deviations.

From time to time, they are reformulated. Why? First, we are fundamentally open to new insights and experiences. Second, we are aware that the expressive power of words is limited and that better formulations can always be found. And third, we do not fail to recognise that language is also subject to the tastes of the times; therefore, we do not wish to bind future generations to older formulations.

The current version was adopted by the 1995 General Assembly without a single dissenting vote (and was slightly amended by the 2015 General Assembly). It is the result of a six-year, continuous exchange between the Spiritual Council, which held the lead, and the community base. It was preceded by versions from 1977 and 1957 (Leitgedanken), and these, too, had their precursors in the history of our religious community, which was founded in 1876.

The text forms a whole. Every individual sentence contains a statement in its own right, yet it stands within contexts that explain one another. It seems sensible to address these contexts in greater detail.

The ‘Preamble’

In the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens e.V., individuals have come together out of a sense of religious self-determination to adopt a democratic constitution. Every member is encouraged to contribute their own religious ideas and participate in formulating shared statements of faith.

We Unitarians belong to a centuries-old tradition of free-religion and thought, and are connected to kindred movements across the globe. Conscious of the difficulty of expressing religious concepts in words, yet wishing to preserve the freedom of personal belief, they have agreed upon the following fundamental principles.

The five formulated fundamental principles are preceded by an introduction – the so-called Preamble. It speaks less about the substantive content, addressing instead the formal prerequisites of our community. Nevertheless, it has been described as the ‘fundamental principle of the fundamental principles’, and not without reason. It truly expresses the foundation upon which our Unitarian community stands. As it reports rather than professes, it is not written in the ‘we’ style like the actual fundamental principles.

Self-responsibility – that is, responsibility to oneself – is frequently declared impossible: some argue that responsibility requires a questioning counterpart, such as a divine judge. However, we see that human beings are fundamentally capable of taking a critical distance even from themselves. Precisely this makes self-responsibility possible.

Religiously, this means that no one – neither an individual nor an institution – has the right to dictate to another what they should believe. However, this is not a blank cheque for unbridled arbitrariness, for the individual’s responsibility also determines their personal decision of faith and its implementation in everyday life. Even when someone voluntarily entrusts themselves to an authority they follow out of inner conviction, this self-responsibility is not superseded.

Self-responsibility is an important prerequisite for Unitarian community life. Of course, this is not the sole reason for joining together as a religious community. Its basis is substantive: a shared conviction. However, this applies to the formation of any religious community and is therefore not addressed in more detail in the Preamble, which highlights the specific nature of this one community, but rather later, in more general contexts. The priority given here to self-responsibility, and thus to self-determination, is intended to ensure that the community does not become a restrictive shackle for the individual.

The outward expression of this fundamental attitude is the democratic constitutional form, which guarantees the principle of equal participation for all involved. Consequently, this applies not only to formal and technical procedures but also to the content of our statements. All members are authorised and called upon to work on the profile and public image of the religious community. How far these guaranteed rights are exercised is the free decision of the individual. In any case, there is no ‘clergy’ with special powers and privileges for the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens. They are consciously a lay community, and in this respect, they are not a ‘church’. With the designation ‘religious community’ (Religionsgemeinschaft), this distinction was expressed as early as 1876.

Traditions of free-religion – that is, dogma-free religion – and thought reach far back into European history; for Unitarians, back to the 16th century, the century of the Reformation. At that time, those who deviated from Christian traditions were bloodily persecuted and attacked; only in a few other countries was it possible to form Unitarian communities. Our religious community traces its origins back to a new founding in 1876.

Early on, contacts were made with kindred groups such as the free-religionist movement, which was a few decades older. Today, the Unitarier – Religionsgemeinschaft freien Glaubens is a member of the ‘International Council of Unitarians and Universalists’ (ICUU), the ‘International Association for Religious Freedom’ (IARF), and the ‘Umbrella Organisation of Free Worldview Communities’ (DFW). We are open to any further cooperation on the basis of mutual recognition and equality.

The difficulty of expressing religious concepts in words is taken very seriously by our religious community. It warns against overestimating once-established formulations, even our own. It is partly for this reason that the freedom of personal belief within the religious community includes the freedom to express shared ideas differently than in the officially highlighted fundamental principles, and to incorporate thoughts that the community as such has previously neglected. Within the Unitarian tradition, community-official statements and personal statements always stand side by side.

About Religion

Religiosity is a fundamental aspect of human existence. It enables us to connect with life as a whole and motivates our search for meaning. Through experiencing, interpreting, and shaping life, an individual arrives at the concepts that give their religion meaning, providing them with a sense of security, courage, and direction.

A community’s religion emerges from the religion of individuals, when people with similar religious views come together to develop shared forms of expression.

Because its origins lie within the human being, no religion can claim to possess absolute truth. Coercion of belief and conscience can never be justified.

In our cultural sphere, there prevails a narrow definition of religion, which deters an increasing number of contemporaries and turns them into opponents of religion. It assumes that religion is a matter of fixed doctrines and cultic forms, guarded by privileged institutions. When looking at the general history of religion, this notion cannot be maintained. We counter it with our own, broader definition of religion.

This new definition of religion initially establishes the religious self-responsibility already mentioned. According to this, religion has its origin within the human being. It grows out of religiosity, which we regard as a generally human trait. We are aware that, from other perspectives, this predisposition is described using different terms.

Religion is first understood here as a relationship to the entirety of life. This, too, is a Unitarian interpretation, which differs from others and will be introduced in more detail later. Added to this is the search for meaning. The history of religion knows numerous possibilities for this – far more than just devotion to prophetic figures or scriptures held to be sacred. Religion as a consciously held conviction, by contrast, grows out of the experience of reality, out of interpretation through reflection or intuition, and finally out of the shaping of life through active engagement, which in turn can bring new experiences. Everything together provides building blocks and raises further questions, against which the Unitarian conviction constantly checks itself.

We regard security, courage to face life, and orientation as the most important values that religion conveys. It does not do this automatically, nor always to the same degree, because life is subject to constant ups and downs. However, the religious foundation, once established, is never entirely lost; it can always be renewed and strengthened. Religions differ, not least, in how they interpret this process: as a force imparted from without, or one that springs from within.

For us, the path proceeds from the religion of the individual to the religion of the community. Religious development can be fostered within the community through contact with those who have had different experiences. A minimum degree of harmony is always a prerequisite for forming such a community. A community’s religion may also emerge when many people adopt the views formulated by ‘intellectual pioneers’. Unitarians recognise the danger of manipulation and loss of autonomy in this; for them, therefore, the only acceptable form of association is one in which decisions of faith remain a matter of personal responsibility.

Religious absolutism is inherently incompatible with this principle. We therefore fundamentally reject it, along with any consequences that might lead to the coercion of belief and conscience. This rejection is formulated to allow for no exceptions – not even for individual Unitarian positions. Unitarians do not recognise any authorities within their own ranks who are empowered to act with binding authority. They acknowledge only temporary sources of inspiration. The fundamental independence and self-responsibility of the individual Unitarian are never superseded by this.

Unitarians, therefore, do not presume to have found ‘the’ path or ‘the’ truth. It is our view that all religions can only be approximations of something that ultimately cannot be grasped and can only be experienced inwardly. These approximations arise from various human premises – that is, they are based on limited insight. Even what presents itself as ‘supernatural revelation’ is, according to the Unitarian view, nothing other than a creation of the human mind. For us, the claim that everyone should believe the same thing is a sign of such narrowness. Our appreciation of diversity, as expressed elsewhere, applies here as well.

About Unitarian Faith

We believe that everything that exists forms a unified whole. Its diverse manifestations are bound together in an all-encompassing web of interconnectedness. We experience ourselves as part of this web, which sustains us and upon which we, in turn, exert influence.

Both within and around us, we perceive the same creative forces that many experience as divine. These forces operate on both a grand and a minute scale and are ever-present, even when we do not consciously perceive them. 

Unitarian religion remains open to new insights and experiences.

Faith grows out of experience and thought. The catalyst for this varies: for one individual, it is a sense of being moved, which then seeks to articulate itself through concepts or images; for another, it is primarily a rational insight, which then bridges the gap to inner experience. Both lead us to the aforementioned ‘entirety of life’, which is now captured more precisely as the wholeness of everything that exists. According to this faith, there is nothing that falls outside of this wholeness – in particular, no opposition between ‘God’ and ‘world’. We thus move away from the widespread dualistic interpretation of reality, which has led to a fateful desacralisation of the ‘earthly’ and, as a consequence, to its unrestrained exploitation.

The faith in this all-encompassing context is based on the fact that we feel the same creative forces everywhere, in the grand as well as the minute, within us and around us. They express themselves in diverse ways: through creation and destruction, in nature and culture, in our relationship with the other, and within our own inner lives. Nevertheless, we feel these forces in all their unmistakable diversity to be ultimately one.

In our understanding, whoever speaks of God is referring to this One, which is so difficult to grasp. However, the term is heavily burdened by the imagery of a different time and culture, making it difficult to convey clearly the meaning we intend from our own premises. In this way, the danger easily arises of talking at cross-purposes. Many Unitarians, therefore, feel a certain reservation regarding this and similar terms; yet, it remains for the individual to decide whether to retain them. We do not seek to standardise personal language usage.

This all-encompassing context includes – as it does all other manifestations – each individual. Consequently, we are not concerned with subordination to a higher power, but with integration into this all-encompassing Whole. It sustains us from within; at the same time, however, we also exert influence ourselves – to a modest extent – upon it, and thus also upon the Whole. This underscores the dual position of the human being as both independent and integrated, a concept of fundamental importance to Unitarian thought.

The interplay between us and the environment requires that we make decisions from as holistic a perspective as possible, taking into account all the factors working together in each case, and not in the sense of narrow interests. To grasp and implement this responsibility ever more consciously is an important, albeit not always easily implemented, consequence of Unitarian faith.

Despite the internal coherence of this conception, we are fundamentally open to new insights and experiences. This, too, distinguishes Unitarian thought from other religions. It underscores once again that we hold no rigid doctrines.

About Life

Life is a continuous, self-generating cycle of emergence, change, and passing away. It unfolds within a state of fluid, reciprocal interdependence.

We hold a deep reverence for life, even while acknowledging its contradictions and hardships. We view the vast diversity of its forms as a profound richness, and we resolutely oppose any efforts to restrict this diversity. The transience of the individual is a necessary condition for this very diversity to flourish.

That living things exist, and the incredible complexity with which they diversify, is among the most exciting experiences we can have. Previously, people sought a clear boundary between ‘inanimate’ and ‘animate’ nature. This position is no longer tenable. Yet, in living things, the miracle of existence appears visible and tangible. Life is therefore, for us, the clearest expression of the creative forces that permeate the universe. This makes it a religious concept for us Unitarians, and thus we have dedicated a separate section to it in the fundamental principles. It is initially limited to life in the biological sense.

The first sentence of this section would be banal if the term ‘self-generating’ (selbstschöpferisch) did not give it its particular religious note. The wholeness of everything that exists, in our faith, knows no creator who stands apart from it. The acting forces, which seem diverse yet are one, cannot be separated from the appearances themselves.

That life always unfolds in reciprocal dependencies has long been neglected. People thought in terms of one-sided dependency, acting from the top down. That this is inadequate has gained increasing importance, above all for the natural sciences. We consciously incorporate this insight into our worldview as a fundamental fact. Reciprocal dependencies determine the structure of the Wholeness, which has already been introduced as a central concept of our faith.

Dependency relationships can appear two-sided, but also as multi-sided networking; they can connect partners of equal weight or those of differing strength and significance; but no one ever acts alone. The general interplay of forces grants these connections no lasting stability. Their changeability is another fundamental feature of life and existence. It goes hand in hand with transience, to which all living beings are also subject, such that room is always made anew for the new.

Life awakens our reverence. This means and requires destroying as little life as possible. This reverence is religiously grounded for us. Indeed, we find the same creative forces at work in everything that exists, to which we ourselves owe our existence and our possibilities for life.

Despite this appreciative attitude towards life, we do not overlook its contradictions and hardships. They arise again and again from the clash of opposing life interests and follow from the aforementioned changeability and transience. All of this must be internally mastered by the human being.

The diversity of the manifestations in which life presents itself is a richness to us and signifies quality of life. Preserving it is a need and a duty for us. From religious conviction we wish to counteract the eradication of existing life forms, whether out of arbitrariness or indifference. For example, by committing ourselves to the preservation of habitats, species, and living beings. We are aware that disturbances to the ecological balance also reflect immediately back upon ourselves.

About the Human Being

The human being is but one of nature’s countless manifestations, deeply embedded within the evolution of life. The human being is an indivisible whole; their physical, emotional, and mental development occurs in constant interplay with their environment. All people, regardless of their individual differences, possess equal rights.

Through our ability to grasp and evaluate complex connections, each of us bears responsibility – both to our environment and to ourselves – for our actions and our omissions. Every decision we make, and everything that happens to us, presents opportunities for growth alongside potential risks. Our strengths and weaknesses, strokes of fate, and moral failings require us to confront and work through them.

Death marks the end of human life; beyond it, there is no certainty. This realisation strengthens our resolve to live consciously and purposefully. Every person leaves behind traces that endure long after they are gone.

In the preceding sections, the essentials regarding the human being have already been stated:

Their integration into the all-encompassing context, which sustains them and which they influence;
The creative forces that also act within them;
Their self-responsibility;
Their ability to relate to the entirety of life and seek meaning;
Their limitations, which deny them absolute insight.

All of this is not repeated in this section, but presupposed and further developed. In just a few lines, no comprehensive image of humanity can be developed. The statements are limited to findings that appear particularly important to us religiously and ethically.

The first finding places the human being among the countless manifestations of nature, embedded within the evolution of life. They are therefore not placed in opposition to nature, and certainly not above it, but seen as a part of it. That they, too, are a link in an evolutionary chain may not be scientifically proven to the last detail. We are, however, convinced of it and feel all the more embedded in the wholeness of everything that exists. We are unable to believe in a special act of creation that would have produced only the human being. It must be emphasised that opposing views also rest on nothing other than faith, far removed from any scientific possibility of proof.

Certainly, the human being holds a special position within this comprehensive framework. We address this through the note that they develop not only physically and emotionally, but also mentally, with the ability to recognise and evaluate complex connections. A mental existence of this intensity, with such an increased share of creative and destructive forces, is, according to present knowledge, unique to the human being.

However, this mental aspect, like the physical and the emotional, is an expression of the indivisible whole that we perceive the human being to be. It establishes their special position, but that changes nothing regarding their integration into the general laws of life. We develop in interplay with our environment – with other people, living beings, and manifestations of nature.

Individual differences do not justify any restriction of human rights for us; these belong to everyone equally, without regard for ancestry, gender, physical condition, sexual orientation, cultural background, and whatever other characteristics might be mentioned. The experience of otherness challenges one to engage with oneself and with others. This includes weaknesses just as much as strengths and refers both to one’s own traits and those of others.

The principle of equal rights is supported by the fact that we humans are similar incarnations of the creative primal forces. This has many consequences, for instance for interpersonal relationships, which should fundamentally be shaped as a partnership. Alongside the mental capacities of the human being, their personal responsibility rests on legal equality and cannot be shifted onto others. It is important to us that this responsibility extends not only to actions but also to our omissions. And we also emphasise that the human being has this responsibility not only toward their environment but also toward themselves and their own life.

But the human being exerts influence not only through decisions for which they are responsible; they are also integrated into processes that act upon them from the outside and can be influenced by them only to a small degree. Personal predispositions set limits for us, possibly leading to culpable entanglements.

However, the concept of sole culpability does not do justice to the integration of the human being into reciprocal dependencies. Strokes of fate break in from the outside, often completely without our doing. Challenges therefore come from within as well as from without. They can release forces that allow the human being to grow beyond themselves; they can, however, also endanger them to the point of failure and downfall.

The confrontation and mastery must be performed by everyone individually, even where large groups are affected together we must ask: What is my share in this? How much do I have to work on myself? How much must I simply accept about myself? How do I endure suffering? When should I ‘forgive’, that is, also allow the chance for change and a fresh start? These are but a few questions of many, for which no one can offer generally valid recipes; solutions must always be found and accounted for personally, even if others can provide advice and support in the process.

Death – the end of life for people who are important to us, and our own impending dying – demands the greatest confrontation and mastery.

That death ends the individual, personal life for each of us is our only certainty. It comes irrevocably. We are allowed to act, but we do not know for how long. This is, for us, a particularly important motivation to shape life – and everyday life – in a meaningful way, and to consciously grasp the moment, in which alone life exists as immediate presence. Every person leaves behind traces beyond their death, varying in intensity, duration, and type: perhaps children, a house, a book, perhaps influences on state and society, perhaps also effects within a smaller personal circle, finally memories that their particular nature, their charisma, left behind. Yet even whoever is forgotten – and that is normally the case after a few generations – has once acted upon their environment and thereby perhaps still exerts indirect influences.

About Living Together

Personal development unfolds within the dynamic tension between the desire for independence and the need for love and security. Consequently, we need communities that sustain us and that we can actively help to shape.

Our lives flourish best in the peaceful coexistence of autonomous individuals. With this in mind, we strive to play an active role in society, the state, and humanity as a whole. We seek to resolve conflicts non-violently through mutual understanding, while acknowledging that there are some conflicts we cannot resolve and must simply endure.

We live within nature and are an intrinsic part of it. Therefore, we feel a profound obligation – even at the cost of personal sacrifice – to treat it with the utmost respect and consideration.

We humans are – as has already been emphasised several times – never only independent, but always also integrated into the life that surrounds us. That is what constitutes the bipolarity of our existence between ‘I’ and environment, between being sustained and contributing to shaping.

Living together is a decisive element of human existence, and it is by no means limited to the interpersonal sphere. Again, there are the most varied forms. A special role is played by the formation of communities. These are, primarily, the relationships in the private sphere that correspond to our elementary needs. But the public sphere also involves us and likewise poses tasks.

Unitarians are active on various levels. Their highest ethical goal is peace. A prerequisite for this is mutual understanding, for peace is more than the mere absence of war and violence. The effort towards mutual understanding is grounded in the reverence for life – including that which we encounter in partners with opposing needs. The same applies to the wish to resolve conflicts non-violently.

This endeavour may, under certain circumstances, place high demands on creative imagination, openness, self-control, and a sense of proportion for both others’ and one’s own life interests. Such peaceful and non-violent paths are usually harder to realise than breaking out into violence. However, mutual understanding is not always to be achieved. Then it is a matter of enduring the conflicts and developing forms of life that defuse the tensions as much as possible.

However, we are not only integrated into interpersonal contexts, but are also part of nature. What peace accomplishes between people finds its correspondence here in a considerate approach that avoids the excessive exploitation of nature and preserves the limits of its regenerative capacity as much as possible. Both correspond to the Unitarian fundamental attitude, and both reflect back upon the human sphere by maintaining possibilities for life for the present and the future.