Are Unitarians Christian?

February 19, 1967
Plainfield
(Kingston NY 1969; rewritten for Lakeland 9/77)

Are Unitarians Christian?

When you go shopping, do you look at labels only, or do you check the fabric as well? This routine difference in buying habits has some analogy to the matter of whether or not one may or may not call himself a Christian; and whether or not it makes any substantial difference. If you are interested in labels only, then my remarks probably will have no interest or relevance for you. But if you have some feeling for evaluating the whole piece of goods, then will you consider with me some of the varieties of Christian classification for the purpose of understanding not only those who exclude us on theological grounds, but also to understand ourselves more fully.

This sermon began last Sunday when I had the privilege of talking on this subject with our church school classes. Their responses were characterized by alertness and commendable understanding of what a Christian is; and what a Unitarian is. Adults who were present suggested to me that a sermon along the same lines might, in some cases at least, be a stimulus to home conversations about organized religion, what Unitarianism and Universalism are; how they are related to the more wide-spread religious organizations in Christianity and Judaism. The church service setting does not quite lend itself to the free-wheeling dialogue situation which prevailed when I talked to our children and young people, so it is much more difficult to anticipate what your questions are and where your areas of special interest and knowledge may reside. I know that some Unitarians are astonished that the question should be raised all, that there is any argument about it. To them, we do not accept Christian dogma and thus have no right to be sheltered from the rock of ages; for that matter no desire to be so placed.

As I said in the Church school meetings last week, when I seek to know the meaning of a word, the first place to search is the dictionary. In the unabridged dictionary, there are four definitions for Christian

l) "One who believes or professes to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth taught by him. An adherent of Christian faith, especially one who has definitely accepted the Christian religious and moral principles of life."
2) “Masculine proper name.”
3) “A human being distinguished from the lower animals; a decent, civilized, respectable, or presentable person.”
4) “One who was born in a Christian country or of Christian parents who has not definitely adhered to an opposing system.”

The ambiguity of the dictionary provides anyone with an opportunity to classify as a Christian, if he so wishes, although some applications of the definitions are ridiculous. Take the third definition, "(A Christian) is a decent, civilized, respectable, or presentable person." There are countless Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems and Atheists who are decent, civilized, respectable, and presentable persons. So, if this definition were taken at all seriously, we could have such affirmations as, "I’m a Christian Atheist, I'm a Moslem Christian, I'm a Christian Hindu," which gets into the absurd.

The reality is that most Christian organizations and individuals place a theological interpretation on the word. That is, definition number one: “One who believes or professes to believe inn Jesus Christ and the truth taught by him,” [or], “An adherent of the Christian faith, especially one who has definitely accepted the Christian religious and moral principles of life."

The World Council of Churches spells out this theological requirement quite precisely in that international body's constitution: "The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the Scriptures and therefore seeks to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

When held to such a definition, of course Unitarians and Universalists are not Christians. The origins of the word Unitarian are in the idea that God is one, not three, with the plain inference that Jesus was not God. We are a church without creedal requirements, so it is theoretically possible to meet Unitarians who believe this trinitarian doctrine, but the instances must be extremely scattered. Why should a Trinitarian embrace the free principles of a Unitarian organization? [CJW note: I’ve not met one.]

But while many will dismiss the matter at this point, there are others who seek to know more about origins and roots of this complex institution known as Christianity. When we do go back and seek out roots, we will find that Christian institutions emerged from numerous origins in the Asian and Mediterranean cultures. As Christianity grew, it took on to its primary heritage the complexities of Greek philosophy and Greek mystery religions; eventually Roman institutions were incorporated into the architecture, organization, law, and rituals of the established Church; and there were many more influences – some known, others inferred.

Although the gospels and most of the other New Testament material were compiled in written form late in the first century, and early in the second, thirty-five to eighty-five years after the death of Jesus, there are very few times when the word "Christian" is used. Paul's letters, most ancient of the Christian documents, make no reference to the word, 'Christian' at all. In Acts, (26/28) King Agrippa says to Paul, "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." In the letter named 1st Peter (4/16) the context of the word, “Christian” indicates that it was an epithet used by the enemies of the new movement. Apparently the word “Christian” was avoided by the groups which formed in the 1st century. They preferred to call themselves “brethren,” “disciples,” “believers,” or “followers of the Way.”

The only other place where "Christian" is used in the NT is in Acts, 11-26. Its use there helps our understanding of ancient difficulties which confuse us still, theologically, at least. ''The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch."

Up to this time, the followers of Jesus had been a Jewish movement for whom there was only one God who had given his law to Moses. They believed Jesus was the Messiah, the Anointed One, the servant of God. There would seem to be no doubt that this Jerusalem-based gathering of Jesus' followers had neither idea nor intent to develop a new religion outside the bounds of Judaism. Their Messiah was a national figure whose mission was to redeem Israel as the corporate community of the Covenant with Abraham. They never identified Jesus with God. Such an identify would have been unadulterated blasphemy.

Largely because of Paul, there was a dramatic change of direction. In the Asian-Greco-Roman world there was a wide acceptance of mystery religions. These offered the initiates individual salvation, personal immortality through the sacred ceremonies of the dying-rising savior gods, of whom there were many, with cultic origins in the ancient Mediterranean, Egyptian and near-Eastern religions.

When the religion of Jesus’ followers became known in that world, it was almost inevitable that those not of the Jewish tradition would identify Jesus as the Lord of a divine cult who offered salvation through his death and supposed resurrection.

We may infer that Antioch there occurred one of the earliest groups of non-Jewish converts. Antioch, on the Orontes River, was an important cosmopolitan center, capital of the East and third city the Empire (after Rome and Alexandria, according to Josephus).

Although Pauline Christianity won out over the Jerusalem Jewish sect of the followers of Jesus, the differences persisted for years and can be readily discovered by comparing the letter of James (possibly brother of Jesus) with any of Paul's letters or the gospel of John.

Thus the ambiguity of the question, “What is a Christian?” is more obscure [than] history can clarify for us. In that famous speech of Paul at Athens, it is fascinating to observe Paul's attempt to make Christianity universal; to include Greek religion under the Christian umbrella by identifying an unknown god with the God Paul believed to be the “Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.” His speech was unpersuasive because, seemingly, no early Christian group persisted at Athens.

The development of orthodox Christianity is a history of controversies. As the Fathers of the Church struck out against heresies, the new faith became more and more dogmatic, with creedal tests that none of Jesus' disciples could have accepted. There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament. The World Council's position is not the simple testimony of the primitive religious groups that gathered in different cities and under different conditions in the 100 years following Jesus' death. The creedal requirement of the World Council of Churches is a sophisticated pronouncement of dogma which carries numerous layers acquired in centuries of theological reconsiderations and accommodations, particularly Greek philosophical ideas and Roman legal institutions. These were not only foreign to Jesus, but also to most of the fellowship groups which
formed in the first century after his death.

Now I don't know of Unitarians or Universalists who feel much pain because of the exclusion (explicit and implicit) in creedal declarations by Christian groups today. If so, there should be some consolation in the knowledge that a group of Jewish disciples of an itinerant prophet named Jesus would also fail to qualify on theological grounds.

But there is another sense in which we must recognize that our Unitarian and Universalist movements were branches main trunks of Christianity. We should not ignore that our origins were in the primitive and developing Christian church as well as in the older Judaism. However we may appraise our developing and changing attitudes and practices, we cannot vote ourselves out of the cultural setting from which we grew.

One of the classic distinctions between orthodox and liberal Christianity has been the former developed teachings ABOUT Jesus while the latter concentrated on the teachings OF Jesus. In earlier days, undoubtedly this was one of the principal arguments in the Unitarian Universalist religion’s resource. The question was raised again and again whether Christian beliefs can be so important as to make conduct and character either trivial or of lesser importance. In the area of belief, that is the teachings ABOUT Jesus, one would have to question whether Jesus could have ever been a Christian. The answer of course is “no” - not theologically at least.

Always the more liberal teachers have asserted that the teachings OF Jesus should be as vital to Christian qualifications as beliefs ABOUT him. Even more, difficulties arise when one looks at the teachings of Jesus without a rosy halo and without undue sentimentality. Jesus lived in his own tine, of course. He spoke to the people of his time, not ours. Neither rural Nazareth nor urban Jerusalem were much like modern counterparts. Few of us would be members of an insecure, wandering brotherhood of disciples who had no prospect of family comfort or long life. Many of Jesus’ teachings just do not seem to speak to our times and problems without such a twist of re-interpretation that what results is accommodation. Yet there was a spirit in Jesus that has called men back to integrity and high purpose; Jesus has been the great example of courage and sacrifice for human values.

In plain contradiction of dogmatic requirements and outward professions of belief, Jesus was more concerned about moral and inner attitudes. Jesus was not concerned that the creed be correct but that the heart be right. He was forthright in his pronouncements. Justice, mercy, and fidelity were character traits and Jesus placed these far above ecclesiastical requirements of tithing mint, anise, cumin.

Creedal Christianity does not permit us to enter, even if we should want to; cultural Christianity is a tradition we all share and cannot, even if we would, entirely rid ourselves its influences which are in our laws, customs, and social habits.

But there is something happening in culture, it may only be a passing fancy or it may be an authentic sign of the future. In spite of creedal boundaries, men and women of various religious backgrounds are finding common cause in the struggle for human values – peace and freedom.

One of the obvious facts of the various struggles in the social order today is the reality that deeply committed Roman Catholic priests and nuns march not only with Christian Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis, and Unitarian Universalist ministers, but also with thorough going atheists, agnostics, and secularists. One of the most charming and provocative aspects of the Selma struggle a couple years ago was the determination of many priests and nuns not to obey their bishops' orders to return home but to answer any call that Martin Luther King might make in order to bring nearer the reality of
justice and equal opportunity for all. The Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations is endorsed by men and nations of all religions and no formal religion. The Declaration of Human Rights is an affirmation by those who think religion is the “opium of the people” as well as by those turn to their Lord and Savior. The trend seems to be that there is a common ground, but it is not anything like a doctrinal common ground but rather the ground of an ethic which can be shared by persons. There were some prophetic words in the Christian gospel of Matthew (7/21 ff), “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven.” The primary obligation to do speaks more to our experience today than creeds. The world has become a neighborhood geographically; it is slowly becoming one city, culturally. The arts, sciences, and religions of all people are being increasingly recognized, Non-Christian, non-religious, as well as Christian. Just as there can no longer be tolerance for a favored nation with "manifest destiny," so it ought to come home to us that there are other great religions than Christianity which are old, enlightening to their followers, with ethical obligations and held with no less reverence than Christians hold their faith.

Not by their creed but by their deeds will all nations be judged as to the value of their beliefs. Henry Ward Beecher, famous minister of Plymouth Congregational Church, Brooklyn, last century, once said, the only orthodoxy God cares anything about is the orthodoxy that makes men and women better persons. In our strange times when problems are complex enough to overwhelm our motivation to act, in our time when the problem is not where the dead will gather, but how the living can live in honor and peace, there seems little room for anything but working faiths which can unite men in action and permit each to define his God or no-God in such diverse ways as differing convictions may suggest. The Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath.

Are Unitarians Christian? If any creedal statement is the requirement, no of course we are not. On the other hand, I resist having definitions imposed on me; so if accused of not being a Christian, I might argue that as a Unitarian Universalist I can claim the name. Being ornery, if you label me a Christian, I would deny this and elaborate why I am a Unitarian Universalist and see in freedom, reason, character, covenant, common knowledge, and service a better religion to aspire to, even though I am not a better person than anyone else.

But of this I am sure, whatever throws light on the shadowed corners of human behavior, whatever illuminates that which is mysterious and filled with awe; whatever holds a torch beckoning us on to new ways of truth, better ways of service, and deeper moments of worship – this is high religion to which all may rally. Call it what you will, by its fruits it will be known.