In the "Religion Poll" thread, Bill made the comment that Unitarian Universalism is historically Christian; as a UU, I conceded this but said that most UUs don't identify as Christian. I meant to find some sort of statistical basis for my comment, but didn't run across it until today. According to a 1997 survey of UUs, 91.5% of UUs do not identify themselves as Christian; the largest category, by far, is humanism (46.1%), followed by earth-centered spirituality (19%) and (presumably unitarian) non-religion-specific theism (13%). Cheers,
This should read 90.5%, not 91.5%. The statistics are basically consistent with what I've seen locally, by the way; the fellow who introduced me to the UU church to begin with was an avowed atheist. Cheers,
Boy, I am going to put my disclaimer up front here. I like Unitarians; Unitarians are my friend! I have no polemical agenda and am not attempting to convert anyone to anything---I mean this in the most literal and clear sense: I applaud the Unitarians for not claiming to be Christians. I admire their honesty and clear sense of self-evaluation. Why? Because, if the delimitations of historical orthodoxy mean anything, then UU is not Christianity. Simple admiration of Jesus as a historical figure and admiration of his message do not alone constitute Christianity. It is both honest and astute on the part of the people polled to recognize this. As always, blessings
Very true, and a good point; but then an argument could be made that Protestantism (which didn't exist in any historically viable form for the first three-quarters of Christian history) isn't Christianity by that standard, either. Cheers,
Tom: I don't think Protestantism could be excluded on the basis of the delimitations of historical orthodoxy for a number of reasons: 1. Protestantism in general affirms the several historical creeds of the church. 2. Even at their most exagerated the arguments between Catholic and Protestant Christians concern the role, if any, of works in salvation, on the Catholic side, and the doctrine of security on the Protestant side, and other issues of soteriology. 3. There is virtually no difference in the Protestant and Catholic theology of God--or "theology proper." God is the same trinitarian entity consisting in the same divine attributes. 4. The Christologies are identical--Jesus is in both held to be exactly who He and the apostles say He is. In other words there is no argument whatsoever between orthodox Protestant and Catholic theology as to the identity, work, purpose, and future of Christ. 5. Finally, there is no disagreement about the salvific value of the "shed blood of Christ" and its connection to OT blood sacrifice. I don't think a Protestant or Catholic could honestly contend that one or the other are not Christian, though I know some contentious parties have tried. Bill's propositions are a little more problematic--I need some time which I don't have right now, but I think that the answer lies in the statement that these positions have within the councils both of Protestant and Catholic Christianity forever been considered heretical. I will get back to you both--I have to go teach a class. Thanks for your input--I really enjoy these conversations; and again please realize I am speaking in terms of academic theology--I'm not preaching! Craig
Definitely understood, Craig--no offense taken! Bear in mind that both of my grandfathers were Protestant ministers. Cheers,
Hi Craig. You are definitely alert. As you can see, "Bill's propositions" have been deleted. I decided to do that almost as soon as I had posted them, because I felt that Degreeinfo wasn't really the appropriate place for theological controversy. Considering that the post's lifetime was perhaps five minutes, I'm surprised that anyone read it. But I'm heartened that you enjoy these conversations because I do too. Not only are they entertaining, but they could be enlightening as well. Even if we don't convince each other (probably unlikely), we refine and perfect our ideas by bouncing them off others. In that spirit, I guess that I will resurrect my points. I was responding to this remark of yours: I pointed out that the early Ebionite Christians believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but they denied the incarnation. They believed that God was the source of salvation and not Christ. They anathematized Paul. Then I remarked that Adoptionism has recurred repeatedly in Christian history. These sixth century remarks about Paul of Samosata (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 86, 1216) sum it up: Paul did not say that it was the self subsistent Word who was in Christ, but applied the title 'Word' to God's commandment and ordinance, i.e. God ordered what he willed through the man, and so did it... He did not say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one and the same, but gave the name of God to the Father who created all things, that of Son to the mere man, and that of Spirit to the grace which indwelt the apostles. (I got this reference from J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 118) My point isn't to argue for the truth of these ideas, though I will point out that they are congruent with the Jewish ideas of Christ's time. But I did want to suggest that such ideas are a part of the Christian tradition. A heretical part perhaps, but nevertheless a part. And one way to define 'Christianity' is by reference to the various threads that compose its historical tradition. One may also characterize as 'Christian' a belief system that accords the figure of Christ supreme religious significance. And it is possible to treat Jesus as a human being whose teaching, life and love uniquely revealed the nature and work of God's grace as the Kingdom of God dawns. Again I'm not arguing that it's right or that it should be done, only that it can.
