American Unitarian Conference Forum

A Post Christianity?
My Thoughts on Trans-Christian Faith

For those of us who consider ourselves Unitarian in the broad sense of the word-in other words believing in One, Unified and Universal God, known in all religions, by many names and experienced in many ways-we often face a strategic dilemma.  Are we Christian or are we something else?  The idea of the Universal Religion, thought a glorious one, has largely failed in its many manifestations-the graveyard of attempts to synthesize world religions includes the Theosophy movement, certain forms of the Bah’hai faith, and the UUA.  Religious pluralism, a powerful value, cannot be an actual religion.  Within our own Unitarian tradition is the idea of Universal Theism, a religion dedicated to God with Jesus being conspicuous by his absence.  This Universal Theism has manifested itself in various forms, among them Transcendentalism, Deism and so on.  The original most generic form of Unitarianism is more like Judaism in its theology than Christianity (this has been referred to, only somewhat tongue in cheek, as “reform Judaism for Gentiles”).  The dilemma here is complicated by the fact that there are varying definitions of what exactly a “Unitarian Christian” is: By the most obvious definition such a Christian simply doesn’t believe in the Trinity and the Deity of Christ-this definition encompasses the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, people unlikely to be happy in our company.  A broader definition of Unitarian Christianity observes it as an unorthodox form of the faith, such as that expressed in David Miano’s fantastic publication on the subject.

The reason that this is so complicated when it should be seemingly easy is that within the Unitarian tradition it is hard to escape the deep and pervading influence that Christianity had.  Whether still explicitly identified as “Christian” or not the original form of “Universal Theism” is still a knock-off of Christianity.  Even the newer form of Universal Theism often tends toward being more similar to Christianity than it is different.  How do we reconcile this apparent dilemma?  To me the answer is two-pronged: First, is that Christianity-real Christianity-is essentially a relationship and not a religion.  I have written elsewhere on this subject, but suffice it to say that by this definition Christianity, to borrow from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, can be separated from “Christendom” and properly returned to the definition of being a follower of Christ.  By this definition much of the supposed conflict evaporates, for we are no longer talking about Christianity as a system of the many beliefs ABOUT Christ, but rather living as he taught.  Christian Universalism likewise identifies the “heart” of Christianity differently.  This is an entirely different animal from what most of us identify as Christianity.

The second piece, however, is trying to reconcile our Christianity with that that has moved beyond the walls of Christianity.  How do we incorporate the other religions-Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam (especially Sufism), Native American religions, Taoism, New Thought and others?  How do we include the compatible teachings and “revelations” that have occurred “post-Christ”?  We must define our religion as a form of “post-Christianity” (a religion freed of the sectarian label and open to understandings and revelation of truth from all sources), a faith that returns to the basic elemental faith without any of the baggage Christianity has accumulated.  I personally prefer the term “trans-Christianity”, because I feel this term is more accommodating in regards to our roots in Unitarian Christianity, better reflects the true definition of Christianity, and recognizes the value that Jesus and his followers have given to us.  Trans-Christianity is all about Christ, but not JUST about Jesus.  We are grounded in the simple faith of Jesus, but we recognize that there is One God, that all Humanity is one, and that there are universal teachings embodied in many religions, amongst them Buddhism, the Hindu writings, and Sufism, that share much with Jesus.  By appreciating the fullness of God’s presence, and the workings of God in the world, continuous revelation, and free thought, we have moved beyond the boundaries of what most people would call Christianity, yet nowhere have we ceased to follow Christ (Jesus himself told his Apostles they were not yet ready for the full disclosure of truth and the Holy Spirit would be coming to finish the job).  A liberal faith such as ours sees the commonalities and overlaps between faiths, discerns truth from all sources, and senses the abiding presence of God in every man.  This would be the way of Jesus, and as we seek to learn and grow, letting God become more Incarnate in ourselves, we find ourselves-inadvertently or not-walking in the path of Jesus.

The trans-Christian path, in my humble opinion, best accommodates true Christianity and that Universal Faith which transcends human religion, but, after all, in reality the two are one.

"Are we Christian or are we something else?"

For me, something else.

In any given ideology, there is a spectrum of thought. However, a spectrum has limits. Debating whether infant baptism or adult baptism is best is one thing; denying the deity of Christ, the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the resurrection, the claims of Paul etc. essentially takes one outside the pale of historic Christian thought.

For me, this doesn't mean throwing out Jesus, but it does make him one among many others in history whose wisdom I sometimes turn to; but even that has limits. I can appreciate the sermon on the mount, but I will not be told to give up my family in order to be a true follower of anyone. Indeed, such statements are today used as markers for identifying cult leaders. I also appreciate many of Buddha's teachings, but I reject the unnecessarily complex philosophy that sometimes accompanies them. I don't believe in karma as retribution or reward for past lives, I don't believe in a coming messiah or Maitreya etc.

I also don't feel the need to blend all faiths, and I think it is a misconception that this is the goal of Unitarianism. For me, Unitarianism is a religious tradition in and of itself, and is open to wisdom from other religions. But that's very fundamentally different from the "all-religions-are-one" of the Bahai faith, and the "we must accommodate every belief, no matter how shallowly we do it" of UUism.

In any case, this question of "who are we?" is always a tricky one...