American Unitarian Conference Forum

The minister of this U.K. Unitarian church, Andrew Brown, appears to fit in with the AUC variety of Unitarianism. See the church site at:

http://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/blog.php

and his personal blog site at:

http://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/

http://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/blog.p...20face.txt
21 May 2007

"But today, in many so-called ‘Unitarian’ contexts, pluralism and tolerance is being IMPOSED upon the individual church communities THEMSELVES. Consequently (and to my mind bizarrely and dysfunctionally) ‘Unitarian’ communities can begin to insist, as a matter of doctrine, that even its own foundational religious faith cannot ‘dominate’ within the local church. This is being done, of course, in the name of inclusivity but all that is really happening is that Unitarian Christians are being pushed out of their historic homes. It is a classic example of Entryism. The sad thing is that whilst the myriad ‘traditions’ the modern pluralist ‘Unitarian’ claims their churches contain (here is the list from the Unitarian Universalist Association’s website and I do not misquote – they really believe this to be the case: Christianity, Humanism, Paganism, Theism/Deism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism/Agnosticism, Islam and Other Beliefs) can find full and real expression in true communities bearing these names (at the local Mosque, Temple etc.) where can anyone find a full and real expression of Unitarian Christianity? We can be assured that today it won’t be in many churches bearing the name ‘Unitarian’ – though I hope Cambridge is one of them."

Maybe he could contribute articles for us by becoming a foreign participant in the AUC.

See also:

http://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/blog.p...0email.txt

My own reply to Stephen Lingwood's email
24 May 2007

"...Unitarian Christians are such people and I am one with Channing in affirming certain doctrines resulting from the liberal method of interpreting scripture through the use of human reason namely, God’s Unity, the humanity (which Channing calls the unity) of Christ, the moral perfection of God, the mediating (or perhaps better exemplary) nature of Christ’s work, and that human beings play a key role in their own moral and religious improvement (i.e. God doesn’t do all the work!). Christianity so understood is, I want to make this clear, a body of doctrines (albeit minimal) and has not thinned out into simply a universal moral religious practice – James Luther Adams, by the way, was very critical of the thinning out of liberal Christianity into a mere moral practice. Unitarian Christianity clearly keeps the method and the outcomes of that method together. Anyway, if as rational free people, we arrive at this position surely we are also free to insist upon being allowed to practice them in own churches and not be either silenced and/or ejected?"

"Instead what is now often occurring, under the name of tolerating and respecting other positions, is that the loudest voices and strongest emotions and prejudices are all too easily allowed to dominate the community. Everyone’s view (from the most reasonable to the most flabby, flaky and ill-thought out) is now guaranteed a hearing and a place. Whilst I would, at a pastoral level, always listen to every flabby, flaky and ill-thought out position, the discipline of seeking Truth through the use of reason, experience, scripture and tradition, means that I will not (and don’t) allow such a position to become in any way normative or mainstream within the congregation I serve."

George de Benneville (1703–1793)
Preach the Universal and Everlasting Gospel of Boundless, Universal Love for the entire human race, without exception. . . . Proclaim and publish to all the people of the world a Universal Gospel that shall restore, in time, all the human species. . . . The inner Spirit makes us feel that behind every appearance of diversity there is an interdependent unity of all things.

This above is the bottom caption on Andrew's blog.  This I agree with.

Much of the rest that is posted seems to be saying :ONLY Christian Unitarians are acceptable.  This I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH.

If my impression is wrong about what he is saying, I will apologize.

The AUC is inclusive of all Unitarians who believe in ONE GOD, love and serve that one God, and love and serve their fellow man.

With love,

Rev Dorris

Rev Dorris,

I guess I didn't really pick up your concern...other than that he writing from a Unitarian Christian / Free Christian perspective as opposed to an anything goes version. He says:

"I am one with Channing in affirming certain doctrines resulting from the liberal method of interpreting scripture through the use of human reason namely, God’s Unity, the humanity (which Channing calls the unity) of Christ, the moral perfection of God, the mediating (or perhaps better exemplary) nature of Christ’s work, and that human beings play a key role in their own moral and religious improvement (i.e. God doesn’t do all the work!). Christianity so understood is, I want to make this clear, a body of doctrines (albeit minimal) and has not thinned out into simply a universal moral religious practice."

I don't think this is out of line within the AUC...as we have Unitarian Christians, Deists and Theists here. We don't proclaim a Unitarian Christian perspective but it is one of several God oriented themes within the AUC.

Rev Dorris,

Rev Brown replied in an inquiry I sent him and he indicated that he met David Burton at a conference in the U.K. and highly recommends that readers of his blog check-out the AUC.
Take a look at this article and let me know what you think:

http://unitarianchristian.org.uk/doc/God...wBrown.pdf

I see some very similar theology to much of what is expressed here:

Re God:
"...Unitarian Christian theology must begin with a basic truth claim
about the Oneness and Unity of God—a claim which is central to our canon. The
traditional statement of faith we point to is that made by Jesus in the first of his two great
commandments (Mark 2:29-30): “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and
you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your mind, and with all your strength.”

and

"...We need to be far more
sensitive to this powerful idea of God’s interdependent unity which has its roots in the
Pauline idea lying behind the verse from Ephesians (4:6) quoted earlier, that there is “one
God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.....Even as we retain the sense that God is greater than us and that we are not, ourselves, God, we have increasingly come to feel that creation—and, therefore, humankind—must be in some real way part of, or in, God ‘himself."

Re Jesus:
"I strongly suggest that a central task for us must be the re-exploration of an idea we inherit from Faustus Socinus concerning the divinity of Jesus’ office or role.13 So, whilst we must continue to affirm Jesus’ full humanity and to be clear that he was not, in himself, divine, we should consider restoring in ourselves a sense of the divinity found in his office or role and so
once more come to understand him as being, for us, God’s Chosen/Anointed (Messiah/Christ)."

Re Holy Spirit:
"...fully developed Unitarian Christian theology of the Holy Spirit
could also offer us a way of showing how God’s interdependent unity can be expressed to
the world both in particular and unique ways as well as in general and universal ways
and that these need not be mutually exclusive concepts."

This is over all a very good article compared with the others.  In this one he emphasises the need to be open to modification of views as new information becomes available.  He emphasises the need for a basic structure or foundation as a start but with the flexibility of growing.  This is very AUC type material.

His interdependent unity or web so to speak did not start however with Paul's teachings.  It was already in existence at the time of The Buddha and possibly as far back as The Rig Veda.  When it started actually is not that important, just that many faiths share the same teaching.

Where I would personally disagree with him is on pages 6 and/or 7 of his paper.  I see no need, personally, to emphasis the need to believe in a resurrection of Jesus.  This becomes a mute point when it is shown that Jesus did not die on the cross.  (Of course, the church documents are branded as forgeries and lies on this point.)  

All the major religions recognize the importance of the teachings attributed to Jesus.  Most accept them as authoritative and universal.  The importance of Jesus to me is enhanced by knowing that he was human and lived as an example to mankind of their potential till he was very old. (somewhere between the ages of 60 and 80.)  One early church father indicated that he was over 80 years old when he died.  (Pure speculation -- maybe).  His importance to the early history of the church was far greater than we a lead to believe.

All the other religions that recognize Jesus do not speak of his crucifixion and resurrection.  They acknowledge that he was a great prophet and teacher.  (An anointed one, if you like.) Without the Koran speaking of his teachings and that he was a real individual, there is no proof of his really being alive outside of christian documents.  This is important because most all the Bible stories of Jesus are identical with Saint Isa (a Muslim saint) who lived 400 years before Jesus and is buried in modern day Afghanistan.  The Koran is the only document that treats them as two distinct individuals.

What the church did with the resurrection and crucifixion stories was to bring back the need for a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of man.  This was an old annual pagan rite.  The church just made it a one time only deal.  This is also the place where the church is loosing and has lost the young people.  The question asked is: "How can or could a loving God require that his son be sacrificed for the sins of others?" OR "How could God sacrifice himself for the sins of man? (For those who believe or teach Jesus is God.)

Now my views may fit somewhere between "(from the most reasonable to the most flabby, flaky and ill-thought out)."  Andrew Brown wrote " Whilst I would, at a pastoral level, always listen to every flabby, flaky and ill-thought out position, the discipline of seeking Truth through the use of reason, experience, scripture and tradition, means that I will not (and don’t) allow such a position to become in any way normative or mainstream within the congregation I serve." Hence my original remark that I disagreed with the implication that only Christian Unitarians are acceptable.

Rev Brown's position seems to have changed in this last article.  If this is true, then I apologize for my original thoughts concerning his position.

I will still agree with this statement of George de Benneville (1703–1793)
"Preach the Universal and Everlasting Gospel of Boundless, Universal Love for the entire human race, without exception. . . . Proclaim and publish to all the people of the world a Universal Gospel that shall restore, in time, all the human species. . . . The inner Spirit makes us feel that behind every appearance of diversity there is an interdependent unity of all things."

This is truly remarkable statement.
To me this is what the AUC is all about.
This is why we have to be inclusive and not exclusive.

In many cases we will have to agree to disagree on various points till one can be proved true or the other false beyond all shadow of doubt.
Still there is only One God, just many paths and ways of worship.

With love,

Rev Dorris

I was curious about George de Benneville and his Universalism:

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/...ville.html

"A feeling of security is strengthened in some by the delusion that it suffices to attend meetings for worship and be received into membership by a certain people. Others put their trust in literal perception, concepts, and ideas of faith. But something very different is essential for salvation, namely, a deep, genuine, fundamental realization of one's condition. A change of heart and mind follows. Then Christ lives in us and we in Him, and our thought, speech, and work will be harmony with His will."


""As no church is pure in all things, so none can be found that does not contain some truth. Glorious truths are found in every church and religion under the sun. And this glorious chain of truths . . . we believe will someday unite all of them into one form of love."

"Preach the Universal and Everlasting Gospel of Boundless, Universal Love for the entire human race, without exception. . . . Proclaim and publish to all the people of the world a Universal Gospel that shall restore, in time, all the human species. . . . The inner Spirit makes us feel that behind every appearance of diversity there is an interdependent unity of all things."

I like this quote too; I also would be turned off by a Christo-centric Unitarianism, however I can empathize with Rev. Brown's sentiments.

I am not a "Christian" in the sense that I don't pattern my life after Christ but that does not mean I do not appreciate those aspects of his mission that ring true...the same with other great religious figures. Could I attend a Unitarian Christian church? I think so...after all...I don't think the divide is so great...if the minister preaches from a distinctly Unitarian Christian perspective (even more theologically radical than liberal Christian doctrine) I think I would be able to enjoy the service and take away much of value. It would certainly fill some needs....that are currently lacking in my local area.

True....been there and done that...the barriers are either secular or doctrinal issues. So, in the meantime, while hoping for a tolerable church to miraculously spring into existence, I am enjoying my "churchless" Sundays.

It will be time soon for a Sunday fall walk posting here. I wonder what happened to FredL?