Shape of Unitarian Christology discussed

Table of Content

Sometimes the comments is where all the fun is. At Chris Walton's Philocrites blog, his article about Isaac Newton has morphed into a discussion about the possible future of Unitarian Christological thought. I won't be chiming in there -- I don't have a horse in that race -- except to note

  1.  The Universalists have many of the same issues, but Christian Universalists have kept independent, if fragile, modes of discourse open while the Unitarians haven't.
  2. I'd tone down calls for meetings or symposia as premature.
  3. I disagree with Jaume de Marcos (whose comment is repeated at his The Hanif Blog) that the Unitarians have "never had a clear christology." They have -- indeed, have had several -- but like most communions, do not have a consistent Christology over time. Nor should they or need they. Readers will note that in ecumenical theology, the question of the nature and operation of the Atonement are live questions. If anything, the problem is too much consistency, that is, a Unitarian low humanitarianism forcing out all other Christologies.

3 Replies to “Shape of Unitarian Christology discussed”

  1. Thank you, Scott. Your choice of words is better than mine, I should have written “consistent” rather than “clear”. At least that is what I meant. However I would disagree that it is as inconsistent as in most communions, since most of these communions share at least the christological legacy of the first Ecumenical Councils.

    I find intriguing that the main objections about Servetus being a Unitarian are raised around his christology (particularly his affirmation that, being the son of God and a human female, and being the incarnation of the eternal Logos, he participated in God’s divine nature and therefore could be called “God”), when Unitarianism has never had a consistent christology which has been changing over time. No still photo of a “Unitarian christology” can be made at any given time that may be considered the quintessential christology for the Unitarian tradition.

  2. Hey Scott,
    The discussion has morphed again…..there’s more talk about the Universalists. So maybe you’ll want to join in on that point.

  3. To arrive at a Unitarian or Universalist Christology it might be wise to return to the beginnings of Christologic formation. I would suggest Gnosticism and Christianity–in Roman and Coptic Egypt by Birger A. Pearson. What is the relationship between the Logos, the Christ, Sophia and various creation stories. How was the Jewish Mysticism of “Jesus” embodied subsequent to his death? What exactly is “God”?

    And now that we actually have the current definitive, The International Edition of The NAG HAMMADI Scriptures in one book edited by Marvin Meyer and introduced by Elaine H. Pagels–why would we ignore the beginnings of Christian Emergence any longer?

    Cheerfully, Roger Kuhrt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.