American Unitarian Conference Forum

I have recently been thinking about this subject and have been writing down my thoughts in my blog. The entry is below. I figured this might raise some interesting thoughts. Let me know what you think!

Christian...or Not?

There are times that I hesitate to call myself a Christian. Part of it of course is that I am so thoroughly disgusted by the actions of so much of the Christian Establishment-especially the Religious Right-that I do not want to go by such a loaded name and I just do not want to be associated with such a crowd. Half-seriously I sometimes tell people that I am a "follower of Christ", not a 'Christian'. There is another reason, however, and it is one I use with full seriousness: Where are the boundaries for Christianity? What determines whether you are in or out? The boundaries today have certainly been tested throughout history-the split of Catholic and Orthodox, the Reformation, the boom of new denominations in America, the blood, sweat and tears shed over repeated divisions within the Church. Today there are innumerable churches-Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, the Unity Church, Messianic Jews, Seventh Day Adventists-that exist on the fringes of the Christian fortress, denounced as cults by the center of the church. Where is the line drawn?

It would depend on whom you ask. Evangelicals and Catholics would not answer the same way. For some there are certain political positons (being pro-choice for instance) that would immediately cast you into the outer darkness. For others you must be saved/born-again or have a personal relationship or follow certain liturgical practices. The majority of the Church, however, answers the question with a statement of doctrine or creed. Despite an endless amount of minor disagreements the central issue appears to be over the creed which is almost universally regarded as the litmus test of the Christian Church: The Nicene Creed (or in abbreviated form the Apostle's Creed). This creed is a succinct summation of the basic points of orthodox Christian doctrine, the untouchable, unquestionable basis of faith. This definition preserves most Protestant Churches (along with the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican traditions) and casts out the "cults", the liberals and, yes, Unitarian Universalists. To be a Christian then is to accept a basic definition of who and what Jesus Christ was, and what his mission on earth was. In other words, Christ was God incarnate come to redeem humanity.

The fact of the matter is however that I do not fit that profile. I cannot accept pure metaphysical speculation to determine who Jesus is (the irony that a religion that is so hostile to metaphysics has a creed that is half metaphysical speculation never ceases to amaze me). Nor can I accept teachings that violate reason or are based on certain interpretations of ancient documents (without original sources, I might add). At the end of the day I cannot swallow the Trinity in its traditional, literalistic sense; I cannot accept the infallibility or inerrant nature of Scripture; I cannot accept the concept of Original Sin that says we are all bound for Hell and in need a bloody transaction to appease a Deity who is helpless to save us otherwise. I cannot accept a teaching that damns millions to Hell, I cannot accept some of the things that were allegedly said by Jesus. I can't accept C.S. Lewis's argument that he must have been "Lord, Liar or Lunatic". I just can't accept it. These fence posts for orthodoxy are too constraining, they violate the heart and the mind.

So what next? I could abandon the label Christian entirely. Unitarianism can be Christian but it can also be a generic form of theism or even a form of classical Deism. It need not necessarily be Christian. Universalism of course does not to be Christian, and the Universalist Herald (the oldest running liberal religious publication in America) no longer calls itself just Christian. I could simply be a monotheist, a generic mystic without a creed. It isn't necessary to be a Christian. Yet I am unprepared to surrender the name Christian. There are other ways to define the Christian faith that don't involve believing a lot of hard to believe things about Jesus. Marcus Borg and other scholars have made clear that the traditional understanding of the Bible is wrong in many ways. While you may not agree with their conclusions their word proves-if nothing else-that nothing is clear here. It is a leap of faith to automatically swallow orthodox understandings such as the Trinity, Atonement and Original Sin.

I choose not to put my faith in such things. To me a modern understanding of the Christian faith rejects old understandings and instead reconciles old, classical understandings in the light of reason and new understanding. There is respect for tradition and God never moves but we accept that our understanding of Her can and will change. For me there can still be meaning found in the Trinity in that it shows different understandings of God but it is not a pure limitation of God the way a literalistic understanding is. Jesus is divine in a sense but is not necessarily a literal incarnation of a "person" of God. His sacrifice was not to appease a wrathful deity but rather a symbol of a new way of life that he offered up. In a sense he died to save us from our sins but not from the punishment of our sins. Salvation is not just understood as the afterlife but as growing spiritually. The Bible changes. Everything changes. This-to me the essence of liberal Christianity-is a more flexible understanding of the faith that is not locked in time and old ideas. It is not a simple variation of orthodox Christianity-on the contrary it is a whole different animal entirely.

Perhaps it is out of respect for the traditional Christian establishment that I hesitate to call myself Christian. I respect the right of faith groups to determine their own membership, hence why I am no longer Catholic (let them keep their own narrow definitions). I am not out to change another's definitions. But at the same time I am determined to have the freedom to determine my own beliefs, hence my embrace of the Unitarian concept of creedlessness and freedom to believe-and the Universalist ability to sense God in everything and everyone. Am I a Christian though? Can I still call myself that? There is of course a yes and no aspect to that question-I am not an orthodox Christian to be sure, I don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed in it's original meaning.

But I am still strongly attracted to the figure of Jesus. To me he was the perfect moral and spiritual teacher, and more importantly the archetypal perfect human being. He was sort of a living sacrament, a brief glimpse of God among humanity. I don't take the orthodox approach of demanding a particular understanding of what this means and I don't write it into a creed. As mentioned before I believe that Marcus Borg has the right idea when he differentiates between the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesuses. But nevertheless, the figure of Christ remains-whether literally or not-as a glimpse of God, the Divine, among humanity. My understanding is radically different-and yet, surprisingly the same as many parts of orthodox Christianity.

Am I a Christian? YES. I believe that a Christian is anyone who believes in the God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, that radiated through and from Jesus Christ, and I believe that anyone who follows Christ, who carries on his work, who unites in his name, is a Christian. It is not a creed that determines who is and who is out. The establishment cannot set the terms of this debate, try as they might.

I am a Christian. And I will never be told otherwise.

Logan,

I am glad you are posting here with your very well reasoned blogs.  As much as I find C.S. Lewis' religious journey similar to my own in many ways...I have always thought the "Lord, liar or lunatic" to be a false choice argument....if Jesus thought he was Lord / or had a divine mission in some way....due to personal transformation, mystical encounter etc. he could be utterly convinced yet sane.  His belief in his mission does not prove who he was / is....but it is a powerful message to humanity regardless.  

Many of todays cults and heretics are tomorrows orthodox.  The orthodox will never recognize the heretic as speaking a valid spiritual truth.

I don't place moral or spiritual perfection upon Jesus..we know so little of his life.  To me, he was human, with all of our foibles...but that does not to take away the meaning of his life, what he sought to accomplish and how he impacted his followers.  Something never before seen in history took root.   I see him in the context of his times...a Jewish rabbi who was fed up with Temple corruption and believed the messianic era / Kingdom of God was to be ushered in soon (possible strong or loose connections with the Essenes, Theraputea etc. are intriguing).  In addition, what we call Christianity today can be argued is actually Paulism / Constantinism etc.  

Slowly, other "religiously progressive" voices (like Borg, McClaren) are emerging and gaining traction....we shall see how it all plays out.  I predict continued ..in fact greater and greater sharp divides.  Liberal religion must indeed change or die...it cannot remain a fence sitter on theological issues...trying to retain the old understandings while concurrently  ignoring or watering them down is a path to irrelevancy.

Logan,

I also find myself asking the same question. I still consider myself a christian, but in the sense that I am a follower of Jesus. I guess it's not the best title, but it is easy. Some days I feel like I should stop. Sometimes because most others who call themselves Christian would not accept me as Christian. But you are right, what gives them the right to define Christian? And other days, it is just because I am fed up with the organized religion of Christianity. I stopped going to church because of this. I just don't believe in church anymore.
Sometimes I wonder if I just hold onto the label because of my upbringing, but looking at your list of "fringe churches" perhaps I shouldn't even bother.

I think it's funny because most of the time growing up my mom took me to churches like these. Mostly Messianic Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist ones, but there were others (some more mainstream) as well. I grew up trying to keep kosher and observe Shabbat. Heck, Passover is still my favorite holiday to this day. And my first experience in a youth group was with the Pathfinders program in the Seventh Day Adventist church.

Maybe I should just drop the Christian label and call myself Fringe Cult Heretic! Perhaps that would get the message across better.

Or maybe monotheist or just unitarian. But then I feel like I'm not describing the fullness of my beliefs. There is definitely a strong influence of Jesus, and to not include that seems wrong somehow. My soon-to-be father-in-law calls himself that. But he is strongly influenced by the Abrahamic faiths as well, and is an Episcopal priest to boot! So maybe that is acceptable?

(Side note: He is actually the one officiating my wedding, and not only is he taking out all the references to the trinity in the ceremony wording, he also is going to add a blessing that calls God a father and a mother! How cool is that!)

I don't really know the solution, but I'm just glad to see that some else is going through the same thing I am.


Oh, and I also can't stand the "lord, liar, lunatic" thing. My roommates and I used to always have long conversations about religion, and throughout the whole thing they were always very reasonable and considerate about our differences of belief, and they were great to talk to, until it came to the part about Jesus. They truly believed what C.S. Lewis wrote, and just could not wrap their minds around the idea that there was another option. We could discuss anything about religion/christianity/philosophy except for whether Jesus was God or not.

I'll keep this short, as I feel a kind of all embracing affinity with you folks on this. I suppose I'm somewhere in between the classifications of Unitarian (and Universalist) Christian and U and U theist. As "Christian" usually seems to confuse people a lot, I generally simply call myself a believer (which irritates some unbelievers I know, but that's ok).

Sarah: I'm also usually turned off by the church experience and the church culture. I'm no longer a believer in any clergy-laity distinction, although that does not take anything away from any friendships I have with clergy. For me, religious groups are much preferable to churches. Anything we liked in the church can be transferred to the group, and might include hymn singing, sacraments, rituals, sermons or talks, hugging, testimonials, or sharing of joys or concerns, but if more and more formalities are added, the group will become a church (shudder).

John

I think the problem with the word "Christian" is the same one we have with the word "Unitarian." The name has been appropriated by people whom we don't like to be associated with. But I think it is better to stand up and say, "Hey, not all Christians are like that. Here is another kind."

A wise freind of mine, who's a member of the AUC, once told me that it's not important whether or not you believe Jesus is the son of God or not, it's only important that you live your life as though he was. That was a life changing concept for me. I've decided that definitions of who is or isn't a Christian just don't matter to me. I'll live my life as though Jesus is God, even though I don't believe in it literally, and just simply ignore the litmus tests.

Logan,

I, too, have questioned my status as a Christian in the past and have concluded that, in the eyes of “the Church”, I definitely am not. But I, like you, do consider myself a Christian, for the simple reason that I believe in and earnestly try to follow the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth, who, by doing God’s will in all things and giving all the glory to the Father, revealed God to me. Period. No complex metaphysical formulae are necessary.

If I am ever asked the question at hand, I would unhesitatingly answer, “Yes, I am a Christian”. I say “I would” because I am not sure the question has ever been put to me. On second thought, I was once asked, long ago, if I was saved, which, considering the person posing the question was a door-to-door evangelist carrying a bible, is probably the same thing. Caught off guard, I answered something like this: “Well, uh, I don’t know. I like to think I am working on it.” Oops, wrong answer; he was ready for me. He said, “ Friend, it is not something you work for, it is a gift, and if you are saved, you know it; you don’t have to think about it.” I paused, feeling the slight sting of condemnation, and then fired back, “Are you my judge?” This time he paused and then replied, proving his knowledge of scripture, “Absolutely not, God alone is your judge.” “Then”, I said, “I will answer to God and not to you or any other man. Thank you for dropping by”. This man, a Christian, had good intentions I am sure. I am equally sure, however, that he walked away thinking I was destined to be thrown head first into the lake of fire, because I, as a Christian, dared to question his Believe or Burn theology.

Ed

For a few laughs watch Rowan Atkinson at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJA9RPX9mRY

Welcome to Hell

For my part, I am increasingly coming to believe that labels such as "Unitarian", "Christian", "Buddhist", etc. are charactaristic of a stage of spiritual development now being increasingly left in the past. Increasingly, people that I regard as actively developing and expanding their understanding of matters religious are so rapidly qualifying their existing beliefs and expanding their studies into areas previously unknown to them that they are genuinely puzzled as to how to label themselves.

In my own case, I find almost daily that what I believed yesterday I find quite suspect today and what I rejected yesterday suddenly today reveals aspects of the truth that open my eyes in ways I never expected. I now like to label myself a believer in "Evolutionary Spirituality" with a belief in "Open Sourcing" of spiritual truth. To interpret Jesus as insisting that he in his limited Human Presence is the only way to truth is to, imho, discredit him and his teachings.

Fred

Too bad the term "Freethinker" has been corrupted by association with Humanist thought:

"Free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists."

A revised definition is needed as a truly "Free" thinker is not locked into the above constraints (hardly "free"....to me), a Freethinker can find truth whatever its source. A Freethinker should be able to accept tradition, authority, dogma etc. if that is the result of his/her truth conclusion.