The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A post for future reference re: Unitarianism

Theology Christology
#24

If someone wants to comment, they can read the text in the link below, and I hope it is easier to follow. Thanks for the suggestion. And a word of warning: one cannot read the opening paragraph and say - oh, I see. Channing is intelligent, and clear, and he develops his position, In other words this is for readers.

That was a bad link (abridged! The outrage) Here’s a better one. Go down to part 2 and begin there. Part one is IMHO the best and clearest explanation of an attitude toward scripture that is sane and balanced. But that is not the subject of this thread, so get on down to part 2.

#25

And so on. I posted these to point out some glaring points that stuck out to me. But Dave, are you trying to make this a creed? Or maybe to position agains a certain creed, but it reads like a possible creed to me. Just a thought. Let me know how wrong I am.:wink:

#26

You request evaluations of the argument offered by “the master.” I personally agree with its’ emphasis that the ‘deity of Jesus’ is logically and philosophically problematic. And I believe the historical Jesus did not himself perceive he was divine. But I also don’t share conservative theology’s view of Scripture.

Thus I doubt Channing’s case would persuade evangelicals who perceive specific Bible texts as what obligates them to Jesus’ deity. For Channing does not cite any texts, and never specifically engages any of those that convince evangelicals on this. They are thus apt to find this balance telling.

Channing only sums up their case by saying: “I am aware of texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him. To these we offer one plain answer… (Given) Jesus’ habit of speaking of God as a distinct being from himself… obliges us to interpret the passages which are thought to make him the Supreme God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and inferior nature.”

This paragraph hints at how Channing might interpret the pivotal texts, but my sense is that with inerrantists, nothing in this long piece can substitute for actually explaining how key texts do not imply that Jesus is more than a normal man.

(FWIW for any interested in evaluating the arguments and texts upon which some serious evangelicals rest, key books (all by peers of N.T. Wright) would include:
James. D.G. Dunn “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?”
L. Hurtado How on Earth did Jesus Become God? Historical questions about earliest devotion to Jesus
Richard Bauckham “Jesus and the Lord of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity”)

#27

Those are all good books.

Those are all good books. They did not convince me, but that’s me. Of course Channing was NOT writing a book. And there is no exegesis. And even if he had, there is NO definitive book on either ‘side’ that will convince everyone. My only hope is that those who sneer at unitarianism as a lesser christian belief would take a few minutes - I see you don’t like the word ‘master’, ok fine - to educate themselves on what an able apologist for the position does in a short exposition.
That’s ALL, Bob. If anyone wants to go further, let him go forth and read books. Still, you nor others have pointed to errors in Channing’s presentation.
Once again the sticking point is that you wanted a full christology, and I am not offering that. Noone thinks higher of Jesus than Paul did, and I am a follower. So are the unitarians I know - they believe everything the bible says about Jesus Christ. What is the big problem with that? You’ve read the other guys’ books - they did not convince you either?
We don’t worship Jesus as God - but worship him as the NT says to. If that’s not enough, if there is some 4th century mumbo-jumbo that ‘some’ would have us to believe in order to be counted as worshiping Christ, then I think those ‘some’ are wrong.
Name anything the NT says plainly about Jesus - the very highest of praises, the greatest paean of worship, I’m with you. Start going on about the hypostatic union, homoousis and the rest, and we part ways. That’s it. It’s simple. Let people read and make up their own minds, is what I think.

#28

Yes, I too wish evangelicals wouldn’t sneer at unitarians, and suspect you are not hearing from the kind of people who founded this site and feel Jesus’ divine nature is crucial to the Biblical approach. I didn’t point to any errors because Channing doesn’t engage the kind of interpretations they would present.

I find the textual nuances and debates seem endless, and I find the books I cited that you apparently have read differ some on precisely how divine the N.T. Christology is in varying texts. My own instinct is that they are right in the essential perception that the Trinitarian formulation developed over time, and is absent in the NT, but that this development into seeing Jesus as more than a normal man begins during the NT, and indeed the claim that he is sometimes seen as a divine figure with a unique relationship to God is justified by multiple texts. I.e. they make the classic contention that the foundational seeds of later doctrinal thought is in the NT.

Mine own instinct is that there are also indications in early NT texts of a more wholly human Jesus, and as I said, language that he was not always a divine Messiah, but was adopted into his vocation, etc. So as one who doesn’t see all texts as in agreement or equally valid, I can admit the later NT sees Jesus as more than a man, but personally remain an old fashioned unitarian, because I don’t accept that development as necessary or true.

Frankly, even conceding that Jesus is to be worshipped, and perhaps claims such as that he was sinless, accomplished salvation, etc, suggests to me that even your own recognitions fit uncomfortably with the assertion that Jesus was a normal man.

#29

Actually they don’t feel that uncomfortable to me. I am pretty well convinced that Jesus is not presented as God in the scriptures. And all attempts at trinitarian apologetics that I have read - there are tons I have not and will probably not read - while cogent and written by intelligent and well-meaning men, do IMO beg the questions that Channing presents. They are bedrock questions. They are not abstract. They appeal to the non-scholar.
So rightly or wrongly, I put aside trinitarian thought and that leaves me with the Bible. How Jesus as a normal human being grew in wisdom, became aware of his call, lived it and fulfilled it to the death in obedience and love for the One he called ‘God and Father’ - I think it is a wonderful thing that God would use one of us to undo the sin of all of us. The magnificent language used of Christ by Paul and others amazes and thrills me.
Now, could Jason stroll in here and blow me away? No, but he like some of the writers you referenced can certainly gather a lot of information and paint a most glorious trinitarian picture. And those swayed by rhetorical pictures will be convinced. That’s fine with me; we’re each responsible for working out our own salvation.
In any case may God be praised forever!!

1 Like
#30

:+1:

#31

In my best moments, I wonder if everytime someone says something about God, I should ask which Person of the three are you referring to? Or all 3? Hmmm

#32

Lol… and yep, every time someone says to me “don’t believe in God” I always ask… which one? :+1:

#33

Ridiculing Trinitarian language, as I too have consistently done, and paid a price for it, is not responsive to my observations.

But I hear you to double down on my implication that “worshipping” someone who is a normal man seems to “fit” fine for you. And that you don’t find it strange that a normal man would be “sinless,” as well as “accomplish salvation.”

Can I assume it also fits easily for you that we may “pray” to a normal man instead of to God, that this normal man could “make himself equal to God,” be the full manifestation of God, be a preexistent creator of the universe who then becomes flesh, that in a normal man “is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” etc?

It may be that our perception and experience of normal humanness differs. I’m actually comfortable with the notion that worshipping any part of the creation including any normal man would be idolatry. To call a human being that I would sing worship to week after week “normal” even strikes me as quite odd.
And thus I don’t think some NT writers would say that they saw Jesus as a normal man.

#34

Historical Unitarianism had some good thinkers. Actually, Unitarianism can include Thoreau and Emerson - in their defense.

But contemporary Unitarianism, places a different emphasize. They don’t require me, to read the original sources. If you go into a Unitarian church, they have some pamphlets - in the lobby. Their minister gives some sermons…usually about social justice and doing good works. And the people are involved, in social programs.

I discovered this, when I hung around them - for a few weeks - in the early 70’s.

Now my friend Art…who’s following an Eastern path…likes going to their church…and he even got some female members, to visit the female Eastern teachers - visiting the area (AKA Amma and Karunamayi).

But…and here is the big but…they do accept everyone, more or less…you could be gay…believe in zombies…follow Eastern gurus…promote UFOs as science…support the Flat Earth Society…etc…as long as you are into social justice.

If this works for my friend Art…and perhaps Dave…I have no issue with that.

However, I do prefer audio and videos - reading the great thinkers. Since I can absorb their ideas, while doing other things.

And I did read through the link at

Of course, these ideas are much different…from those, I subscribe to - in EO/EC theology. But I like to read great western philosophers…and appreciate them…even though I don’t buy into, all their philosophical positions.

P.S. If I wasn’t into traditional Christianity… and I was concerned with social justice and worshiping the one God (AKA non-Trinity)…I would join the Baha’i faith, rather than Unitarianism.

#35

And you’re quite right.
Jesus was as I understand it, born in the ‘normal’ human manner, as a ‘normal’ human being. I don’t know why that troubles you. Would you have him be other than human? Something in between as to his nature - maybe two natures? Certainly his accomplishments and destiny are NOT normal. What part of what I quote below are you misunderstanding, for you certainly are misunderstanding>:

Is there something more you would add to what I said there? Does that sound as if I believe Jesus is someone ‘normal’ in YOUR sense?

I did NOT SAY TRINITARIANS, I pointed to the language:

Worship as the NT says. Ok, I do. The NT does not describe him as God, but still calls for worship. Ok.

What sounds like ridicule is actually a pointed question in disguise, as ridicule often is. When someone uses the word ‘God’, the listener could be understanding something quite different, not what the speaker is meaning at all. Some trins do use the word in a sloppy manner - as Channing points out. Trins when they use ‘God’ mean WHAT exactly? 'God wills such and such" - is not a simple statement if one holds to a 4th century formula. It IS fair to ask if they are talking about the Father, or a consensus of three persons, or what the heck they mean, at least compared with christian monotheists who say God and mean - God, Yahweh, the Father almighty maker of heaven and earth.

Has Jesus as the Messiah accomplished a God (the Father)-empowered mission that is central to the entire universe? Yes, and he is a hero of mine for doing it. He has the highest name and glory but one. And still is a human being, and still the perfect expression of who the Father is.

So why do you think Jesus was not born in the way normal humans are?

#37

I can see the drawing power of that position.

#38

The reason that I think some writers do not think Jesus was born in the normal human way is that Matthew and Luke describe him being born without sperm from his dad, much less having angels and a star guide folk to his birthplace calling us to worship him! How is that a normal birth?

You insist that Unitarians you’ve known believe everything in the Bible. All the Unitarians I’ve known are political and religious liberals who actually do not believe at all in the virgin birth, that Jesus created the cosmos and then become flesh, that he controlled the weather or walked on water, that we should pray to Jesus, that he was the full manifestation of God, or that he was perfect and sinless.

In my debates with Jason, he excoriated my Unitarianism as far to the left of Christianity’s Biblical consensus. So it’s fine if you desire to push me even much farther to the left. But I need to admit that I think the pivotal Biblical texts (that Channing’s case largely ignores) are more complex here than Unitarians tend to admit when they say it calls Jesus a normal man.

I’m also not grasping why you say the call to worship Jesus “fits” with his being a normal man. Do you disagree that the essence of idolatry is to worship a creature or what is created? Isn’t ‘God’ the Reality who by definition is the only One who qualifies for our ultimate worship? I think the NT’s sense that Jesus is the sinless object of our worship shows that Christianity developed the notion that Jesus is more than a normal man quite early.

#39

Very true!

Let’s look at Wiki

Unitarians have liberal views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions. They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. They also do not enforce belief in creeds or dogmatic formulas. Although there is flexibility in the nuances of belief or basic truths for the individual Unitarian Christian, general principles of faith have been recognized as a way to bind the group in some commonality.

Or we can view CBS

Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is divine. They say they worship God only and are attempting to demonstrate a “genuinely religious” community without doctrinal conformity. They believe in rationalism, social action, and the inherent goodness of humans. Because they do not believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, who would have to be divine in order to save us, they have developed a humanistic type of religion that makes salvation dependent upon ethical good works.

The beliefs of one member of this society were clearly summarized a few years ago in an advertisement: “Do Unitarians Believe in Anything? We believe in brotherhood;…in Civil Rights; in the United Nations; in upgrading our educational system; in an attack on the problems of poverty; in the nuclear test ban treaty… Many of us even believe in God.”

I know people who have joined Christian Science, Unitarianism, The Baha’i faith, Buddhism, Unity School for Christianity, Theosophy, etc. I won’t ask them, to leave what they find meaningful. It’s better to follow a religious and moral path - IMHO - then no path at all.

And one can learn a lot, by reading Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau!

Here’s a good song, that came to mind - regarding social justice!

#40

HF - thanks - that approach reminds me of those who find all kinds of quotes against Christianity, then in response we have to say ‘that’s not what we call Christianity’ blahblahblah. (the No True Christianity’ fallacy) Same with unitarianism, it turns out. I was SO hoping that we could do one simple thing to understand what the hay we’re talking about, without asking Rachel Madcow, the Dalai Llama and Anton Lavey what they think unitarianism is. But they are more interesting than old Channing, I can dig it. Plus we can find soundbytes so easily! NO thought needed. Don’t have to meet Channing’s arguments and agree/disagree or anything like that. I mean I appreciate that you are contributing, you have good things to say, but sadly so far from what was the intent of the thread. C’est la vie.

Bob, I would mightily hope that you would start a thread on what is exercising you so much. It’s a rich mine of thought that deserves some real attention and I would happily get involved. I want to respond to you but I had other aims here completely.

I think the thread is dead now as to initial intent, so I suggest we don’t even try to resurrect, so to speak, the poor thing. Let’s move on to greener pastures!!
sail

#41

Dave. Run a simple test, would you? Pick a Unitarian church. Any Unitarian church. Go to some of their services. Talk to the congregation and ministers, during social and coffee hour. Ask them if they know, who Channing is. And if they see his ideas, having validity today. I bet anything - in play money - most folks there, would have no clue - who Channing is.

I would love to find a Unitarian church, where most people embrace Channing…along with Emerson and Thoreau. But I doubt you will find one.

#42

I so agree. I cannot find such a one! I have tried.
But that isn’t what I was getting at here. If the bar is raised to the point of ‘find a church of any kind that practices what its source documents teach’ - I won’t find that in EOx, RC, or Prot churches either. Though they make the claim.
I’m just looking for clarity, and going to the source is the only way I know how, not by studying those who have corrupted it over time and using THEM as the yardstick.
Yeah, I know where that line of reasoning leads
Not a big deal. I just am happy striving to:

“Live under the open sky,
In the broad light,
Looking far and wide,
Seeing with my own eyes,
Hearing with my own ears,
And following Truth meekly but resolutely” -Channing

#43

Well, I find it in the EO. Not because of what I know. But because of who I know and what they know. Like my friend Dora. Who got her Ph.D. in Biblical Archaeology from Oxford - at 26. And who is a lifelong, Greek Orthodox church member. And is fluent in Koine (i.e. ancient) and modern Greek. Or the priests and bishops, from the EO church I attend. They also know all the languages, been to seminary and know the tradition.

Much is just jumping in and picking a framework - any framework. It may be wrong. It may be right. But I run with it.

Just as I run, with the path of Holy Foolery. Which I describe in detail in the Path. And if we were doing science in the arctic, this might be me.

And warning people of the dangers, of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Right or wrong, we must take a stand.

image
image.jpg541×745 97.5 KB

#44

Find what? Everyone living in complete accordance with scripture? That’s what I was referring to. I’ve know EOx that were not exemplary folks. But that doesn’t mean much, does it? Anymore than unitarians not living up to what they should?
Happy for YOU though.