© 1995 Merlyn Cox
© 1995 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
I recently spoke with a friend who was interested in obtaining a copy of The Urantia Book. I had previously shared with her the opinion that many people have difficulty in approaching the book with a critical but open mind. Her reply was that it “was just another source.”
I found the comment refreshing. Many people in religious matters appear motivated more from fear than from faith. Many, both lay and clergy, seem unable to trust themselves to critically evaluate sources outside the mainstream. Laity often feel the need for permission from authority figures to do so, while clergy appear afraid of being seduced by such material, or vulnerable to criticism from other clergy or laity.
Such fear, I believe, has helped to maintain the idolatrous attitude that many Christians have with regard to the scriptures. However, there is also a danger of Urantia Book readers falling into the same kind of idolatry. As impressed as we may be with its content, as authoritative and compelling as we may find it, there is no claim to perfection and no anathemas or warnings aimed at those who would criticize it. Indeed, it invites critical inquiry and emphasizes that truth is where it is found.
Throughout The Urantia Book there are many comments by the authors such as “we are not sure, but we think…” or “We simply don’t know… .” It certainly does claim to have come from high sources, and that the spritual content of its message will bear the test of time. But it also clearly invites thoughtful interaction and criticism. As Jesus is quoted as saying to antagonists and would be defenders alike, “The truth never suffers from honest examination.” (UB 153:2.11)
The Urantia Book, indeed, will not suffer from honest criticism. Such criticism will eventually help sort the essence from the accessory, the truth from its conceptual containers. The early church fathers seldom erred with regard to scripture the way latter day Christian fundamentalists have. They believed God condescended and provided a very human container for the Word through the Scriptures. They believed in an underlying unity of purpose guided and revealed by the Spirit, but that unity and perfection of purpose did not rely on the perfection of its outward form.
The Reformers almost reveled in cataloging the inconsistencies and flaws to be found in the Scriptures. They could do so because they discounted the outward form as secondary and even unimportant. Luther likened the Scriptures to a manger, a very common thing having no outward beauty in itself, but holding what was precious, even divine.
We would do well to so regard The Urantia Book. Treating it as “just another source,” far from demeaning it, is very much in keeping with its own message and a healthy antidote to idolatry and fetishism. We should confidently invite people to evaluate it on its own merits. In the end it will better serve the purpose it claims to serve.