Liberal Christian denominations

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
The problem I have with the centrality of "love" to this equation is that it leaves the god-factor out of a whole bunch of other experiences/feelings and feels rather uni-dimensional. Not sure that's an improvement on our usual instinct for duality.
 
Existing is complex, but I don’t think there is a problem with cultivating a way of being and behaving that makes love the priority, and puts it at the centre of decisions about what to do/ how to behave amidst the rest of the complexity.
 
What other source is there for love? Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. You will know (Christians) by their love (not by their doctrines). Seems to me, from a spiritual point of view (not talking biology and brain chemistry), God is the only source of love.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
To my mind, to be CHRISTian, that love needs to somehow be related back to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was pretty clearly a theist himself even if one rejects his divinity. I think that as soon as love itself becomes the focus, and is detached from God as the source of it or Jesus as the teacher/embodiment of it, you're into post-Christian.
Click to expand...
then that should be true of the congregation you would go to if you wanted to hear about Christ.

In a way of thinking about it, though, even UU relates back to the teachings of Christ because it began as a Christian church originally. I guess I understand both sides. I prefer to be in a place that still preaches about Christ...I see him connected to that evolution but don’t want him forgotten - because I really don’t think we humans have it all in hand.. At some point...Kingdom come, however that manifests and unfolds, we will not need faith, or hope, only love.
 
Kimmio said:
then that should be true of the congregation you would go to if you wanted to hear about Christ.

In a way of thinking about it, though, even UU relates back to the teachings of Christ because it began as a Christian church originally. I guess I understand both sides. I prefer to be in a place that still preaches about Christ.
Click to expand...

How much a given UU congregation preaches about Christ entirely depends on the congregation. That's part of our congregationalism and of our commitment to religious freedom and diversity. Some lean more on our Christian roots than others. The humanist leaning of most of the postwar fellowships is one, very influential, wave in UU'ism but that doesn't mean we're all like that. One of our six sources is "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves" and while some atheist/humanist UUs are not comfortable with that, it's there and many of us do talk about it. I have read from and preached on Bible passages in some of my services and the London fellowship was started as a humanist one.
 
Mendalla said:
How much a given UU congregation preaches about Christ entirely depends on the congregation. That's part of our congregationalism and of our commitment to religious freedom and diversity. Some lean more on our Christian roots than others. The humanist leaning of most of the postwar fellowships is one, very influential, wave in UU'ism but that doesn't mean we're all like that. One of our six sources is "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves" and while some atheist/humanist UUs are not comfortable with that, it's there and many of us do talk about it. I have read from and preached on Bible passages in some of my services and the London fellowship was started as a humanist one.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking abstractly, and historically - the Unitarian church began as a Christian “denomination” - so, abstractly, and essentially, I see Christ as a part of that evolution to more inclusivity.
 
Kimmio said:
Existing is complex, but I don’t think there is a problem with cultivating a way of being and behaving that makes love the priority, and puts it at the centre of decisions about what to do/ how to behave amidst the rest of the complexity.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with it at all. It is at the centre of many faith traditions. Secular humanism, too.
 
Kimmio said:
What other source is there for love? Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. You will know (Christians) by their love (not by their doctrines). Seems to me, from a spiritual point of view (not talking biology and brain chemistry), God is the only source of love.
Click to expand...
Well, that is a faith statement you are making Kimmio. Born of the Christian tradition. Not that I see anything wrong with making a statement of faith . . . I would make a similar (not identical) one myself. Probably did already upthread.

You are correct in asserting that biology and brain chemistry offer different explanations. Likewise the social sciences.
 
Kimmio said:
I’m thinking abstractly, and historically - the Unitarian church began as a Christian “denomination” - so, abstractly, and essentially, I see Christ as a part of that evolution to more inclusivity.
Click to expand...
At some point in its history, UUism became a post Christian denomination. Perhaps @Mendalla would be able to pinpoint this for us. . . I understand that UU history varies quite a bit throughout the world.
 
paradox3 said:
At some point in its history, UUism became a post Christian denomination. Perhaps @Mendalla would be able to pinpoint this for us. . . I understand that UU history varies quite a bit throughout the world.
Click to expand...
Yes. But like I said, I’m thinking more in the abstract spiritual sense rather than concrete timelines and places.

Love existed before Jesus of Nazareth existed. Yet, we know (as Christians) that he’s the Alpha and Omega. There’s a reason why he came along as an example to follow and Christianity emerged. His example was to be a selfless human being, and in that way, Divine. He shows us the nature of God which to follow on earth. And that, essentially, is to love one another...in doing so, that’s how we express love for God (rather than profess love for God).

I mentioned Einstein as an analogy, because even without knowing his name, we have his equations - we don’t need to idolize him to have those. And they always existed, but they were articulated and put into practice. Now, maybe some people still think it’s important to recognize that those equations came from Einstein, and therefore, through him; and not take them for granted without honouring his contribution. But, would Einstein mind if he stopped being honoured, or would he be more concerned about what his legacy, and the equations lead to?
 
paradox3 said:
At some point in its history, UUism became a post Christian denomination. Perhaps @Mendalla would be able to pinpoint this for us. . . I understand that UU history varies quite a bit throughout the world.
Click to expand...

Actually, UU itself is basically North American, product of the amalgamation of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America. In the UK, it's just Unitarian and the body is called the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. Ditto other countries. It also remains more clearly Christian in many other countries, e.g. the London fellowship has a Unitarian partner church in Hungary that is explicitly Christian.

When did we become post-Christian? Hm. The AUA was pretty much there before amalgamation. Several Unitarian ministers signed the 1933 Humanist Manifesto and were part of developing religious humanism as a movement. Less sure of the Universalists.
 
I'm not entirely sure why we'd identify UU-ism as Post-Christian, when both of their "positions" - unitarianism and universalism, are Christian options for belief.
 
BetteTheRed said:
I'm not entirely sure why we'd identify UU-ism as Post-Christian, when both of their "positions" - unitarianism and universalism, are Christian options for belief.
Click to expand...
Christian universalism is different than what you might call general universalism in that Christian universalism proclaims Christ as the sole agent of salvation. All are saved in Christian universalism but only because of God's grace extended through Christ. General universalism would not require Christ as the means of salvation.
 
What about Christian universalists who believe that Christ is always the means of salvation whether known or not? Through Him we are saved. Sort of like, through Einstein, the theory of relativity is known, it is universal, it’s always existed, and it is also incorporated into everyday existence whether we know about it, or who founded the formula, or not?

That’s how I came to call myself a Christian...was along that route. It was like understanding the formula and its purpose, for something that existed but was not known to me, that I took for granted without question - or maybe I had forgotten. Some people come to it the from other direction. They learn about God and Christ first, they know their bibles inside and out, and then the bible itself becomes less important than the essential lessons therein and they start shedding layers of doctrine...but somehow, we meet in the middle. But maybe God does not require that everybody have a profound ah-ha moment of faith.
 
Last edited:
Practically, whatever you call it, there's no effective difference between Christian universalism and any other sort. I'm just not sure that you can describe them as Post-Christian when both parts of their name arise from genuine Christian positions.
 
Just thinking about 1st Corinthians “you can have faith to move mountains, but if you don’t have love, you have nothing.” Everything hinges on love. No matter what one’s religious beliefs about God, or not, are. Love is the difference between everything, and nothing. Faith doesn’t even matter without love. Christ is, essentially, Love. Salvation comes by way of Love. As a Christian universalist, then, I have faith in Christ but what Christ points to is loving our neighbours is expressing love for God whether consciously or not...and those actions fulfill what Christ came to teach whether one calls oneself Christian or not. There are better Christians than me who don’t even identify as Christians from their own points of view, and that’s okay. I was one of those, though, and I guess I needed a reminder before I got too far from prioritizing what is most important - or needed to relearn where to place my priorities - or I needed to be led back to a community of people who do make love a priority - because the world is increasingly not that way. It’s soul sucking and a person can get lost in it. So, that was my “saved” moment. And I can’t explain that any better. Before that I would have been too embarrassed to go to church to find that kind of community. It was too weird and woo woo, from the perspective of my atheist/ agnostic upbringing and friends. But not anymore. However, my purpose for being there, being drawn there, is not religion, it’s community.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HFC
BetteTheRed said:
Practically, whatever you call it, there's no effective difference between Christian universalism and any other sort. I'm just not sure that you can describe them as Post-Christian when both parts of their name arise from genuine Christian positions.
Click to expand...
True enough concerning their history. But here in North America, at least, they are broadly inclusive. So it is possible to be a Christian UU, a Humanist UU, a Buddhist UU etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top