Well this was fascinating.
I've read a lot about the Unitarians, so in a sense I knew what to expect, and there were not a lot of surprises. But knowing about something and experiencing it are often different things.
I arrived five minutes before the service began at 11 and had a last minute hesitation whether I should attend the Unitarian meeting or the Chrisian Scientists across the road. I saw someone else enter the Unitarian building so followed his lead. The small room was half full with mostly elderly people. There were fewer than 30 people in attendance: one young woman under 30, and one couple in their late 20s, who arrived slightly late. Another one or two were under 60, and the rest were in their 60s, 70s and 80s. Everyone was white, and as far as I could tell, a mixture of Scottish and English.
Three or four people greeted me, a little nervous but friendly. One woman (an organiser I recognised from the website http://www.glasgow-unitarians.org.uk/) brought me a couple of hymn books and made some small talk about where I come from. One man, who greeted me, warned me that Iain is preaching today and "he can go on a bit, but sometimes you can get something from it". I said I had looked up the theme on the website before coming and I was looking forward to the talk. He looked at me with a little suspicion and took his seat.
Then a woman began playing on the piano. I think it was possibly one of Beethoven's sonatas, or maybe Schubert. It wasn't note perfect but it was competent and pleasant.
Then the service began on time. The speaker told the congregation that the musical prelude was part of the service and properly we should sit and listen in silence instead of continuing to talk to one another. The man who had warned me off the speaker shouted out that there was a difference of opinion on that matter. The speaker responded that there may be a difference of opinion, but nevertheless he was pointing out the proper way to do things. And it struck me that while Unitarians are very open to differences in belief, they can be a bit sticky on ritual. Which seems altogether a more harmless eccentricity.
The speaker explained the format of the service, perhaps mainly for my benefit. He said there would be worship followed by sermon followed by worship. But first of all he would light a candle, which is traditional for Unitarians to do. Having lit the candle we sang a couple of songs. The speaker said he had reservations about the first song because it was "too Christian". I struggled to find anything Christian in the song at all! It was called Mighty Spirit, Gracious Guide.
Then we sang another lovely song called Die Gedanken Sind Frei (Thoughts are free), which is a beautiful little song (based on an old German folk song) about the merits of freedom of thought.
My thoughts freely flower
Die gedanken sind frei
My thoughts give me power
No scholar can map them
No hunter can trap them
No man can deny
Die gedanken sind frei
And this gives me pleasure
My conscience decrees
This right I must treasure
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator
No man can deny
Die gedanken sind frei
And throw me in prison
My thoughts will burst forth
Like blossoms in season
Foundations may crumble
And structures may tumble
But free men shall cry
Die gedanken sind frei
Perhaps the finest antithesis to JW mentality you could hope to find in lyrics. I enjoyed singing this song with these nice people. It strikes me that if the protestors at Warwick feel the urge to sing something while they are protesting outside the new Watchtower headquarters, they may struggle to find a more appropriate song.
(Forgive the irrelevant graphics, this is the only English video I could find)
The speaker called for a moment's silence and contemplation followed by Ombra mai fu on the piano. The speaker repeatedly referred to this portion of the service as "worship" but it wasn't worship as I've ever seen it before. There were quotes from Einstein, Confucius and a traditional Maori blessing. No prayer we would recognise as prayer.
Then came the talk which had the title "Ancient voices for a post Christian Era". This was probably the most interesting talk I have ever heard in a church. The speaker argued that classical authors grappled with a culture in decline just as we are witnessing the decline of our Christian culture in the west. Therefore he said we may learn something about our "post Christian" predicament, and our possible responses, by considering the approach of ancient thinkers.
He quoted Lactantius on the problem of evil: that if God is able to act but is not willing he is not good; if he is willing to act but not able he is not all powerful: and if he is neither willing nor able then why call him God? The speaker said he found himself increasingly atheist in outlook but did not wish to press this on others. He did not want to commit an "act of vandalism" but try to find constructive lessons from ancient voices. He also said that trying to say anything about God is to diminish the concept and to limit the possibilities. At the same time he did not wish to hinder discussion. We must be able to speak even about unspeakable things. These are diffcicult and contradictory impulses, each with merit, and complexities that should be acknowledged and explored.
He then divided ancient thought into three schools (acknowledging this is a gross simplification and largely categories of convenience): Neoplatonism, stoicism and Epicureanism. He gave a revelatory (for me) explanation of Neoplatonism as a system of thought which attempted to accomplish two things: combine various experices of the divine within a single framework, and also answer the problem of evil by separating the supreme God from creation by intermediaries.
He said in future weeks he would speak about stoicism and Epicureanism and what we can learn from them in our post Christian Era. He was a very good speaker and the talk was very intelligent. I've done a poor job of conveying its contents, I'm afraid. I would like to go back and hear the rest. It was a pretty unique experience to sit in church and not internally disagree with what is being said, or at least only agree with the eyes of faith.
He also made the comment that Unitarians are not accepted by the word council of churches, but in a sense this could be an advantage. As a church that has been placed outside the Christian fold, the Unitarians are uniquely positioned, as a church nevertheless within the Christian historical tradition, to grapple with the post Christian world in a constructive way.
There was a brief section with announcements and a collection "for the running of the church". Again I gave £1.50, my standard donation.
Then we sang a couple more songs and finished exactly on time at 12 o'clock. The speaker put out the candle he had lit at the beginning. I think one hour is just the right length for this sort of meeting. Most church services last too long,
After the service I was invited downstairs for tea and biscuits. And to look at their small library which had some interesting books. I also took a couple of their magazines and newsletters and paid £1.
I talked to a few different people downstairs. I asked one person why they talked about "worship" during the service when there are no prayers or traditional hymns and many members are agnostic or atheist. He just kind of smiled at the question.
I agreed with another person that the freedom to believe what you like is liberating, but how does the church hold tougher? "I don't know", he says, "but it does". I also asked him if they tried to convert people or get new members. They don't try to convert people he said, but welcome people when they come. "What is the future for the church?" I asked. "We try not to think about that", he said.
Another person told me there used to be more Unitarian churches, but now there are only four in Scotland: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. There were fewer than 30 at this service. If the other three churches are similar in size, that means there may be fewer than 150 active Unitarians in Scotland. Given the age of most in attendance, without some dramatic influx of young people, it is difficult to imagine there will be any functioning Unitarian churches in Scotland in 20 years time. They are in a similar position to Methodists, Church of Scotland, and United Reformed churches, which face extinction on current trends, only probably worse.
Which is a shame, because they are really nice people and I think many people (formerly religious people in particular) would enjoy their services if they knew about them. The members mainly comprise formerly religious people who nevertheless feel the need for a community and to share idea and sense of wonder together in a group. Maybe they could attract more young people, atheists in particular, and grow in future. One man told me that when you join the Unitarian church there is a 6 months cooling off period to see if you change yoir mind! And there is no objection to maintaining memberships of other churches simultaneously.
But it also occurs to me that perhaps they don't care about growth. Maybe they don't even care so much if the church closes. Not as much as other churches care. After all they wouldn't take the closure of the church as a sign from God. They don't believe in such signs and many don't believe in God. And if the church serves a function now, for those who are members now, that is not invalidated by closure at some future time. Beyond mere nostalgia it may not mean anything.
Unitarians will probably struggle to survive because they fall uneasily between two stools. Atheists may be irritated that the form of Unitarian meetings appears in some sense to be religious, even if the content is not religious. And for religious people, they won't be reassured by the traditional structure of the services because the content does not affirm any faith position.
One person told me after the meeting that Unitarians are excluded from church councils, "not because we have wrong beliefs, but because we don't have a creed at all." Which I thought was a very astute observation: mainstream churches tolerate variations among denominations. But what they really can't abide is a church which allows its members to believe whatever they like. It says something deeper about the nature of most religious thinking that this observation rings true, even though I don't know the detailed circumstances of Unitarian exclusion.
I was prepared for the fact that, despite the "unitarian" name, most members are not interested in discussing the Trinity. But one member surprised me by saying that's what drew him to the church. He viewed the incarnation as a monstrous doctrine. A philosophical objection to the Trinity, rather than a scriptural one, is certainly different from the JW focus on proof texts.
I enjoyed this service: the songs, the sermon and the friendly people. The only thing is that, as well as being older, most people appeared to be upper middle class, a different background from me. So that was a slight barrier, but they were friendly. I would give it 9/10 and might even consider returning to hear further talks.