Unity Church

I just learned about the existence of Unity Church. Is this the easiest way to become an ordained minister from an established denomination within a major religion? Unity Church is often compared to Unitarian Universalism, but Unity Church is just a very liberal Christian denomination whereas UU has long abandoned its Christian roots and is non-creedal.

The Unity ordination process primarily consists of online classes. UU requires an MDiv.

https://www.unityuwm.org/become-credentialed-leader

 

While very liberal, Unity espouses viewpoints that are altogether similar to Christian Science and similar New Thought cults. Unity even has its own version of the prosperity gospel.

 

Unity Church does include woo, such as metaphysics. What is and isn't a cult is subjective and based on what society has deemed as acceptable, at present time. Christianity was once seen as a cult. To me, most religions are cults and almost every religion is anti-science.

 

I hear that a lot. It is, however, untrue. There are three predominant uses of "cult:" The technical (i.e., non-pejorative) sense derived from the Latin cultus, which refers to religious devotion; the socio-psychological sense, which typically refers to a group that features bizarre practices, deviant behavior (e.g., sexual and/or financial misdealing), and centralized leadership usually expressed in one person; and then there is the theological sense which refers to groups that have emerged from established parent religions (i.e., world religions) who deviate from the parent religion's core theological tenants. The theological sense was intended in my comment and it is indisputable that Unity fits the category.

 

Exactly. Just like Christianity broke away from Judaism, and Islam broke away from Christianity. The reason why these are no longer considered cults is that time has passed and membership has grown. More recently, the Church of Latter Day Saints has gained more social acceptance than the Jehovah's Witnesses despite the fact that Mormonism strays further from Christianity. It's subjective and all based on who has the better PR campaign.

 

That, of course, presupposes that Christianity isn't the fulfillment and continuation of the OT faith.

Uh, no one on the planet who knows anything about Islam would affirm such a claim. Absolute nonsense.

Wrong again. The reason why both Christianity and the main expressions of Islam are not considered cults is because neither of them fit the definition either historically or theologically.

Given that the WB&TS denies every cardinal belief of historic Christianity, I'd say it's about a tie. Both are polytheistic to some degree although the watchtower would fit neatly in henotheism. In any event, where did you get this idea that "more societal acceptance" is the metric to determine what is and is not a cult? That betrays the meaning of the term and assumes your erroneous characterization.

Spoken like someone whose thoughts on the subject are shaped by her own badly informed theological views at the outset. Let's apply such a tack to any other issue and see how it goes.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm not so sure Christianity really "broke away" from Judaism if by Judaism you mean modern Rabbinic belief and practice. Modern Rabbinic Judaism came into its own of necessity following the destruction of the Second Temple and the exile of the Hebrew community. Its roots are older of course but Rabbinic Judaism had to substitute for the extinct Temple cult and national ritual observances. It was portable and preserved as much of the distinct Jewish people as possible under awful circumstances.

Christianity is a very different religion. It may borrow from Jewish sources but it also borrowed extensively from the Pagan world, mostly the Greeks. Christians created a universal religion that was free of ethnic or national identification. The results were fantastic. Christianity set the world on fire.

 

Hi Michael, please explain why you stated it's absurd that Islam was a Christian heresy in origin? My understanding is that Syriac school of Christianity is the origin on Islamic theology, and even must of the Arabic language. In fact, the Eastern and Western Syriac Christian churches share so much external similarity to Islam, Western Christians have difficulty distinguishing individual believers

 

Hmmm... a belief system that affirms the prophetic nature of the Hebrew Scriptures, and, moreover, largely acknowledges the Gospel story of Jesus while denying His divinity? That's remarkably close to several known Christian heresies. Less bizarre that some, in fact. In fact, come to think about it - the way it was centered about Mohammad and set him up as not only a "final" Prophet but also as a political leader - very cult-like.

There was a Middle Ages work listing all know Christian heresies at the time. Islam was very much included.

 

In all fairness, that's not that hard. Syriac Churches, dogmatically, are fully Christian. Even their rejection of Chalcedon is more of a misunderstanding, and the traditional labelling of many of these churches as "monophysite" is false. So to distinguish an individual Syriac Christian believer from a Muslim, it seems to be enough to just ask him/her whether they believe that Jesus is God. Boom!
Also, I don't think their liturgical and theological traditions are all that similar.

 

Many Western Christians would give the "wrong" answer to that question themselves.

The prayer 5x a day, prostration, black vestments, cylindrical hats, bearded leaders, and chanting makes some nonliturgically based Christians view easterners, especially Syriacs suspiciously.

Theologically of course Syriacs are Christian, probably the original Christians in fact.. but laypeople are more visual than theological when it comes to first impressions

 

You take the Bible literally whereas most Christians don't, so neither I nor most people raised in the Christian faith are going to agree with you. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Michael represents a minority of Christians, so he pretty much believes that most Christians are wrong. Debates with him are not going to go anywhere.

 

He's doing mental gymnastics to try to deny that Christianity and Islam historically fit his own definition of a cult.

 

Historians of Judaism, who earned their degrees at accredited colleges unlike a certain someone, also state that Judaism was influenced by Greek paganism. Even though Michael denies it, the general consensus among academics is that the Abrahamic religions were influenced by Zoroastrianism.

Historically, Christianity was seen as a Jewish cult that was centered on Jesus, and it certainly does fit Michael's definition of a cult. It's not hard to imagine that people back then were freaked out by the new religious movement that worshipped an executed man they believe rose from the dead.

 

If "many" means a significant number... that's truly unfortunate. Christ's divinity, as well as his humanity, death, and resurrection are absolutely central to what Christianity is trying to say. I know that there are "cultural Christians" especially in Europe who don't know the basic creedal statements of their purported faith (ex-USSR is notorious for that), but shouldn't Western Christians be more familiar with, you know... the Bible? At least people in some regions have an excuse of religious texts and instruction being banned for decades. You'all should do better.

Syriac Churches are the ones where you can still find Aramaic language and the Liturgy of St. James (which is the root of every other form of Liturgy), so..., yeah, pretty much the OG Christians (also, see Acts 11:26). Hard to imagine someone not recognizing that.

 

TBH, I kind of see what he tries to say about Unity; how it is a "Christian" group that denies some core parts of Christianity. Not unlike the LDS and the JW. However, I don't see how that exact logic wouldn't be applicable to Islam as well. That religion does claim that it believes in "Isa" while denying Trinity, Incarnation and Resurrection. I'm not familiar with Jewish religious thoughts enough to assess how "cultish" Christianity looked from that perspective. I think both Michael and I would agree with "Christianity is not a cult - because it's true" statement - it just clearly won't be persuasive for anyone who's not already Christian.

 

Speaking of Christ's divinity, there are unitarian Christians who do not believe in Jesus' divinity. Since polytheism was brought up early, the irony is that some Muslims, Jews, and nontrinitarians have accused trinitarian Christians of polytheism.

 

And, that would only give more credence to my argument that whether a religion is considered a cult is subjective. Most people on this planet do not believe that the Christian Bible is true. Therefore, a person would have to come up with a better argument for why Christianity, in its beginnings, did not fit the definition of a cult. The Jews who remained in Judaism and did not follow the Jews who believed that Jesus was a prophet certainly do not believe that Christianity is a fulfillment and continuation of the Torah.