might the “religious concepts” of the revelation become intellectually crystallized?
“Evolutionary man does not naturally relish hard work,” and it is easier to “retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped religious doctrines and dogmas.” In the short term, it appears likely that the religious concepts in this revelation will become philosophically refined, hardening over time into increasingly precise definitions, until there are various sets of doctrinal beliefs around which numerous religious sects will form. This slightly pessimistic outlook for the near term seems justified by the fact that intellectual crystallization has already occurred in the Urantia movement. There are deep doctrinal differences over how the revelation should be disseminated, and these sincerely held beliefs have led to a sectarian fracturing of our movement. While it is a very good thing that the organizations are now trying to minimize their differences, both UAI and the Fellowship have their origins in fundamentally different approaches to dissemination. There is still a great divide between the two, and both see themselves as the sole legitimate successor of the former Urantia Brotherhood.
Like some others on this forum, I remember a time when we were organizationally unified, before this bitter breakup. Many regrettable things were said and done on all sides, some of which have yet to be forgiven and forgotten. While everyone in the movement still appreciates the supreme spiritual value of this epochal revelation for both the individual and world civilization, we hold on to our different ideas about how to disseminate it. We are unified in our humble adoration of the spiritual values and truths in the Book, yet we persist in believing in the unassailable righteousness of our intellectual ideas about its dissemination. Why do we elevate these ideas to the level of moral imperatives, so that any further discussion is precluded and any possibility of compromise is prevented?
What has occurred with the idea of dissemination is likely to occur with other religious concepts, it seems to me, unless we are willing to accommodate some variation in the religious ideas and beliefs of others. The Fatherhood of God is personally discovered by each child of the Father, but the brotherhood of the children of God cannot be realized in isolation, apart from the socialization of religion. And socialization requires some measure of compromise by every idealist who would join with others to fulfill the common purposes of a religious group.
Always does the socialized religion of a new revelation pay the price of compromise with the established forms and usages of the preceding religion which it seeks to salvage. Baptism was the price which the followers of Jesus paid in order to carry with them, as a socialized religious group, the followers of John the Baptist. John’s followers, in joining Jesus’ followers, gave up just about everything except water baptism. (144:7.1)
The socialization of revealed religion always requires some compromise with evolutionary religion. The above compromise was unanimously agreed to by the followers of Jesus and John after a great deal of very hard work undertaken with the utmost sincerity.
These twenty-four men had a truly remarkable experience these two weeks when they were compelled to face problems and compose difficulties without Jesus. They learned to differ, to debate, to contend, to pray, and to compromise, and throughout it all to remain sympathetic with the other person’s viewpoint and to maintain at least some degree of tolerance for his honest opinions. (144:6.11)
It is possible for ardent idealists with the same spiritual motives to compose their personal differences and work together with unity of purpose. These twenty-four men show us how we might overcome the rather embarrassing situation in which the Urantia movement now finds itself: How are we to preach the brotherhood of man, when we cannot even realize it within our own ranks?
Christianity is seriously confronted with the doom embodied in one of its own slogans: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The non-Christian world will hardly capitulate to a sect-divided Christendom. (195:10.11)
What is true for Christianity is equally true for this new revelation of religion. An honest self-appraisal might lead to the unpleasant conclusion that we, as a group, are like the blind leading the blind. We speak eloquently and with one voice, as it were, of the glories of spiritual brotherhood under the Fatherhood of God, but we, as a social group, have failed to realize this profound truth in our relations with our fellow believers: we know not whereof we speak. Who is not inspired by the spiritual idealism of Don Quixote, an idealism so overwhelming that it absolutely refuses to compromise with any inconvenient facts the world might throw at it? But the followers of Jesus were not so blinded by spiritual truth that they failed to recognize the truth of facts. They willingly undertook the hard work required to reach that place where they could “pay the price of compromise” required for reconciliation with their fellow believers.
In friendship,
George
