We may modernize his thought by saying that where the ancient model of ultimate reality was drawn from the VIPs of ancient culture - kings, judges, warriors, patriarchs, parents - Adler substituted the model of democratic society. "We have replaced the God-idea by that of a universe of spiritual beings interacting in infinite harmony." (p. 126) In the writings published in 1906 under the title The Religion of Duty, he discussed Theism at length and indicated what he could and what he could not accept from that system of thought. For Adler the issue involved both principle and practical strategy: It was a matter of principle to gather up the good from the past and he saw certain ideals embodied in ancient theistic ways of thought that he wanted to preserve. At the same time, as a matter of strategy, he wanted to appeal to God-believers who had become unchurched and to invite them to join the Ethical Movement without having to check their theistic mental baggage at the gate. The 1895 statement on religion indicates that the Leaders shared this tolerance while expecting a gradual evolution towards acceptance of the supremacy of ethics on the part of new members. This approach of drawing on but transforming the past characterized the writings of several other Ethical writers (Sheldon, Martin, Bridges, Chubb, Muzzey, etc.) who presented traditional religious themes from a new non-theistic perspective.

Adler left an unresolved tension in our thinking on the question of Theism by insisting that members of the Ethical Movement are free to believe in this regard as they may wish, while declaring the supremacy of ethics and its independence from theology. A supreme and independent ethics must inevitably challenge traditional theistic systems of thought in which ethics is based on the revelation of a Creator in nature (deism) or through personal messengers and their sacred writings (theism). That tension remains within the Movement: Some remove the tension by totally rejecting what theism has to teach; some attempt to revise traditional theism; some leave such issues to private speculation; and many, as we have seen above, transmute the values of the ancient theistic systems into a humanist frame of reference. Historically, the period following Adler's death saw an emphasis on a humanism that found little place for Adler's own transcendentalism. By Adler's design, his metaphysics was not an orthodoxy for the Movement he created. However, continued reading of and renewed interest in Alder's thought has led to reappraisal of his concepts and their contemporary relevance.

The question may then be raised: How can we both preach tolerance and freedom of belief and yet insist that only an ethics independent of theology be the basis of the Movement? To which the answer, to be true to the genius of the formula that has undergirded the Movement, must be one of speaking of the operational reality of the Societies in contrast to the speculative nature of thought about ultimate reality. As Leaders, we cherish freedom of belief on the speculative nature of ultimate reality but we do assert the operational primacy of ethics as the basis of Ethical Culture, meaning by that that while we do not affirm or deny private theistic belief, such belief does not characterize the Movement nor should any practice that presumes such belief (such as public prayer to a supreme being) be imposed on our meetings. Our ethics is rooted in human resources and in the ongoing unfolding understanding of human nature within the setting of the evolution of life here on this earth and against the background of the larger universe. We see through a human lens and can only formulate our perceptions of the universe in human terms.