The third section of what is known within the Unity ordination process as “credo” looks at what we understand to be the nature of God. Before I begin, however, I need to stake out a perspective that may be new to what you have learned about metaphysics in Unity. In some sense, this entire credo succeeds or fails on whether my perspective is an accurate analysis of metaphysical thinking. It will come up time and again in the remaining insights. This perspective is about the difference between Metaphysics and Mysticism.

Metaphysics.

The language other metaphysical Christians and I use in talking about God and the nature of God is the language of metaphysics, at least from the perspective of western tradition. It may be a surprise to many, but what we know in Unity circles as metaphysics did not originate with the Fillmores nor from any source in New Thought. And it may genuinely surprise others that metaphysics also did not develop from the teachings of Judaism or Jesus.

The true origin of metaphysics is from the classical Greek philosophers, the same source from which we have our current understanding of the nature of medicine, geometry, and ethics. That is to say that the metaphysics we use in Unity is as fundamental to the Western understanding of God as the Hippocratic Oath is to medicine, or the Pythagorean theorem is to geometry, and as is the concept of virtue to our understanding of ethical living.

Authority in Christian metaphysics.

By choosing to use the language of metaphysics when talking about God, we give our theology a specific authority, or grounding. Authority in religious matters can be a real problem. In science, we have no difficulty recognizing that authority rests with proven truths. But in the world of religion, we still tend to look for authority in churches and traditions, which evolve. By doing so, we tend to find our authority in the opinions of theologians, who change their explanations even more rapidly. Let me stress that there are no external authorities in metaphysical religion. I will repeat that several times — there are no external authorities in metaphysical religion.

The advantage of grounding our beliefs in the classical western metaphysical tradition is that we, unlike nearly all other Christian denominations, do not proclaim that neither our teaching nor our teachers are “privileged.” We do not claim that what we say is true because the Bible says so. Nor is what we say true because the Church says so, nor the Pope, nor Billy Graham, not Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Thomas Aquinas. Not Augustine, Origin, Tertullian, or Clement. Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Not the Apostle Paul, not even Jesus.

Instead, we begin our spiritual claims by asking, “Do you believe in geometry, in medicine, in ethics?” In other words, we start with a level playing field in our discussion about the absolute reality of things. This is vitally important to us in postmodern, post-Christian culture because it grounds our beliefs not in “what we confess” and certainly not in “what we feel.” Instead, our beliefs are grounded in what has been brought to western civilization — modern medicine, advanced science, and democratic government. In other words, it may be rightfully claimed that Greek metaphysical teachings about the ultimate reality of God are the counterpart to much of our modern understanding of life. That is where I begin when I teach Unity classes.

Mysticism.

So much for metaphysics. But there is another language we often use (inappropriately) when speaking about God: the language of mysticism. Mystical language should be used when talking about our experience of God; it is not appropriate to use mystical language when speaking about God per se. The following section, Humankind’s Relationship to God, is entirely devoted to our experience of God, and in that paper, I will use mystical language, specifically the language of Emilie Cady.

As I will explain in that section and throughout this credo, mysticism, rooted in our experience of God, is as close to authority as we will get in metaphysical Christianity. To some extent, we place our authority and trust in our experience of God when studying the teachings of Jesus, the Bible (metaphysically interpreted), the Church (as experienced by others), and other authorities validated by experience. Does my experience of God seem to be confirmed by the knowledge of God described by Jesus? Does it seem biblical? Is it in alignment with others in my church? These are valid questions, and the authority I use to talk about them can only be mystical language.