|
|
|
APOLOGETICS |
|
Unitarian Universalism - Part 5 By
Dr. John
Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon |
|
Theology – Part 2
Jesus Christ
Unitarian Universalists [UUs] have almost
as many views of Jesus Christ as are imaginable, but
most of them see Him as a good man with good teachings,
not so different from the good and wise men in all ages.
There is one consensus about Christ, however, which
seems to find universal UU agreement; He is not a
divine, atoning Savior.
UU minister Waldeman Argow declares of
UUs: "They do not regard him as a supernatural creature,
the literal son of God who was miraculously sent to
earth as part of an involved plan for the salvation of
human souls." 1
In fact, Argow incorrectly maintains that to accept the
biblical portrait (which teaches both Jesus Christ’s
full humanity and undiminished deity), is to make Him
irrelevant, for then, supposedly, He is a God that
people cannot relate to. Citing Theodore Parker,
[If] as
some early Christians began to do, you take a heathen
view, and make him a God, the Son of God in a peculiar
and exclusive sense—much of the significance of his
character is gone. His virtue has no merit; his love
no feeling; his cross no burden; his agony no pain.
His death is an illusion; his resurrection but a show.2
Parker, who originally made the previous
statement at his May 19, 1841, Boston lecture, actually
began the lecture by quoting Luke 21:33, where Jesus
said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words
will never pass away"! For most UUs today Jesus’ words
have passed away and have little if any relevance.
Other UUs of religious persuasion may
claim to respect and revere Jesus, but it is principally
a Jesus of their own making. They discard any teachings
or deeds of Jesus that they personally dislike,
particularly His miracles. With liberal theologians
generally, UU adherents are "much more impressed by and
committed to the historical Jesus than by or to the
theological Christ."3
In other words,
UUs prefer the "real" nondivine Jesus of history, whom
Christianity allegedly distorted in the process of
inventing its own ideas about Jesus as a "theological
Christ."
At best, for UU people, Jesus is an
example of one who had faith in humanity, but He is
never the object of faith for humanity (John 3:16) or a
revealer of the one true God (John 17:3). From "the babe
in the manger legend" to the "symbolism as poetry" of
the resurrection, the life of the biblical Jesus
is rejected and ridiculed. As far back as 1867 (and
before), Jesus Christ was being assaulted by
Unitarianism. The "Fifty Affirmations of Free Religion"
of the Unitarian Free Religious Association (1867)
stated in point 34 their desire that "the completion of
the religious protest against authority must be the
extinction of faith in the Christian Confession," the
belief that Jesus was the Messiah.4
By accepting the discredited methods and
findings of higher criticism and the Jesus Seminar, most
UU ministers and laypeople today believe that they can
know little if anything about the "real" Jesus.
Therefore, they are free to reinvent Him in any form
they wish. The average UU person is not interested in
the compelling historic evidence for the biblical
portrait of Jesus, but only in whatever he or she wants
to believe.
I have my
own picture of Jesus, a fictional picture of course,
but as valid for me as any of the other fictional
pictures. It is based on descriptions and narratives
in the Gospels and I admit I have taken only those
things that I want for my picture and have ignored
those things I do not want.5
The most
influential English Unitarian, James Martineau
(1805-1900), stated what has come to be a common UU
belief: "The incarnation is true, not of Christ
exclusively, but of Man universally."6
Further, the Person of Jesus is not unique: "I admire
the spiritual force and ethical direction of the
Nazarene, but he was neither perfect nor infallible. He
is not to be worshipped."7
This same minister declares, "I accept Jesus as my
Christ," and he states that he hopes to be "true to his
[Jesus Christ’s] discipleship."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, the biblical
antagonist and leader of the transcendentalist movement,
spent two years in the Unitarian ministry. His famous
July 15, 1838 "Harvard Divinity School Address" still
reflects the views of a majority of modern UU adherents:
"Historic Christianity has fallen into the error that
corrupts all attempts to communicate religion.... It has
dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the
person of Jesus."8
UU minister
and professor Jack Mendelsohn repeats the long
discredited "Paul invented Jesus" theory, for which
there was never a shred of evidence. "Most of us believe
that on the basis of the evidence available to us,
Jesus, at most, thought of himself as the Jewish
Messiah. It was later followers and interpreters, like
the Apostle Paul, who transformed Jesus into a Christian
Savior atoning to God for the sins of mankind."
Incredibly, Mendelsohn claims that the deity of Christ
and the doctrine of the Trinity were never accepted by
Christians until officially formulated at the Nicean
council in a.d. 325. "The deity of Jesus thus became the
official orthodoxy of Christian religion."9
This is proven incorrect by looking at numerous early
church Fathers who unequivocally defended Christ’s
deity.
Sin, Salvation, the Atonement
The history of Universalism indicates
continued disagreement among its members as to what sin
is, whether it exists and whether it could or should be
punished by God. Some early UU people insisted that the
death of Christ made all punishment of sin unnecessary.
Most contemporary religious UU people, if they believe
in sin and the afterlife at all, think people are
punished for sins only while on earth by the natural
consequences of their own mistakes. Others may hold to a
purgatorial view.
Regardless, in UU, salvation (if we may
use the term) is not from sin and God’s wrath against
it, but from whatever human conditions prevent
individual self-fulfillment. This may be referred to in
political, sexual, economic, environmental, gender,
social or global categories. People need to be saved
from the harsh realities of an imperfect world, not from
an infinitely righteous God whose holiness demands a
judgment upon humans that sin. In one sense
(presupposing UU views on ethics and good character),
salvation can be achieved by improvement in personal
character through sincere effort.
In 1803 the Universalists adopted the
Winchester Profession, which became the expression
of Universalist doctrine. It used the phrase "salvation
by character," which has continued to this day.
The UU view of "salvation," then, means
complete trust in one’s own resources and ability to
save oneself from whatever one does not like, while
God’s concerns as to the nature and method of salvation
are discarded (Gal. 1:6-9; Rom. 3:28). Argow argues:
"The concept of original sin and the doctrine that human
beings have to be saved from the consequences of that
sin are utterly foreign to the thinking of religious
liberals.... ‘Salvation by character’ as Unitarian
Universalists sometimes call it... is at once their
faith and their aim."10
Mendelsohn, referring to good works in
general, and faith in man in particular, concludes;
"This is what we mean when we say we believe in
salvation by character. Perhaps it would be more
accurate to say, salvation is character, for we
do not mean that character saves a man from the flames
of an imaginary hell or for the bliss of an equally
imaginary heaven. We do not profess to know the precise
dimensions of immortality."11
Parker stated a similar theme; "It is not
so much by the Christ who lived so blameless and
beautiful eighteen centuries ago, that we are saved
directly, but by the Christ we form in our hearts and
live out in our daily life, that we save ourselves."12
Since UU has no absolute standard for
right and wrong, "sin" can only be considered in
relative terms. People decide for themselves what sin is
or is not, or even if sin is real. What is sin to one
person may be joy to another. For those UU who do
believe in sin, sin is "atoned" for by character and
good works. The good works typically involve social and
cultural reconstruction: radical education; liberal
ideas of criminal justice; animal, abortion, and
homosexual rights; and so on. Unfortunately, they seem
oblivious to the social and moral destruction that such
ideas have wrought upon society.
Since many UU followers are secular
humanists and materialists and believe that this life is
all there is, such concern with social action, however
misguided by UU philosophical premises, is
understandable. However, with no clearly defined sense
of God’s judgment upon sin in the next life, there is
obviously little concern with "saving" someone’s soul in
this one.
Clearly, if one does not believe in
Jesus’ teachings on eternal punishment for those who
reject Him (Matt. 25:46; John 8:24), one can hardly
express concern for the lost. Mendelsohn asserts his
offense at Jesus Christ, saying that the Jesus of the
Gospels "is not the hope of the world": "We were
suitably alarmed a few years ago when the World Council
of Churches met in Evanston to proclaim impertinently
that Christ is ‘the hope of the world.’ Our sense of the
fitness of things was disturbed. We know that a
theological Christ is not the hope of the world." 13
UU minister
Tom Owen-Towle declares: "A single savior, be it myself
or Jesus Christ will not suffice.... We UU’s don’t
promise salvation from eternal damnation or
anything resembling it... Furthermore, we try, but with
no guaranteed success, to save our followers from
ignorance, mediocrity and despair. And finally you can
rest assured, we will absolutely refuse to save anyone
from themselves."14 This is why Mendelsohn
declares, "We are not missionary minded." 15
At least, that is, not for biblical concerns.
Some UUs may claim that UU does not
actively seek converts, but this is not the case. Many
UU people actively proselytize because those who are
wise enough to have become enlightened on the subject of
free thinking may naturally attempt to convert others
from their "darkness." J. N. Booth refers to the UU
necessity to "liberate" others "in body and mind," so
they can live properly, in accordance with their own
inner divinity. 16
According to Mendelsohn, "a new zeal for ‘telling our
story’ has blossomed among us," and "radio and TV are
being increasingly used to present liberal religion."17
But UUs have
no desire whatever for sharing the truth about Christ’s
death on the Cross for our sins. The following statement
by one UU theologian illustrates UU views on the
atonement of Christ: "No scapegoat can carry away the
sin and punishment. No Savior can carry away the sin and
punishment. No Savior can bear the penalty in our
place."18 Thus, "Salvation is universal.
People are capable of infinite improvement, liberalism
asserts. When we raise ourselves onto a higher
moral and spiritual plane, through living the exalted
precepts of our religion, we are achieving our own
salvation. By striving we are capable to build in
ourselves, through noble works, an increasingly better
character."19
A leading Unitarian, William Ellery
Channing, "the Colossus of American religious
liberalism," declared in his May 5, 1819 address that
the idea of Christ’s atonement was the most pernicious
of errors.
We
recollect, however, that, not long ago, it was common
to hear of Christ as having died to appease God’s
wrath and to pay the debt of sinners to his inflexible
justice... [such views are] a very degrading view of
God’s character. They give to the multitudes the
impression, that the death of Jesus produces a change
in the mind of God towards man, and that in this its
efficacy chiefly consists. No error seems to us more
pernicious.20
Channing asks
in all apparent sincerity, "We ask our adversaries then
to point to some plain passage where it [Christ’s
atonement] is taught."21
How someone like Channing could miss such obvious
passages as the following is explainable only by
personal bias, not by lack of scriptural testimony:
Matthew 26:28; John 1:29; 6:51; Romans 3:25; 5:8-10; 1
Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:7;
Colossians 1:14, 20; Hebrews 9:12; 10:10-12; 1 Peter
2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10; Revelation 1:5.
Nevertheless, the atonement and collateral doctrines are
for Channing "altogether... the fictions of
theologians."
Christianity is in no degree responsible for them. We
are astonished at their prevalence. What can be
plainer, than that God cannot, in any sense, be a
sufferer, or bear a penalty in the room of his
creatures?... How plain is it also, according to this
doctrine, that God, instead of being plenteous in
forgiveness, never forgives; for it seems absurd to
speak of men as forgiven, when their whole punishment,
or an equivalent to it, is borne by a substitute?...
We believe, too, that this system is unfavorable to
the character. It naturally leads men to think, that
Christ came to change God’s mind rather than their
own; that the highest object of his mission was to
avert punishment, rather than to communicate
holiness.... For ourselves, we have not so learned
Jesus.22
Perhaps this was the problem: UU people
never learned of the biblical Jesus.
For UU people generally it is apparently
too demeaning personally to believe that they or mankind
generally should ever need an atoning Savior. "We are
never Christians as he was the Christ, until we worship,
as Jesus did, with no mediator, with nothing between us
and the Father of all."23 This kind of
spiritual pride betrays a pretentiousness and lack of
trust in God. It illustrates why Jesus emphasized, "I
tell you the truth, unless you change and become like
little children, you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven" (Matt. 18:3). "If you do not believe that I am
the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins"
(John 8:24).
Man
Rather than affirm faith in God, UU
believers affirm a positive and proactive faith in
humanity.24
A person is the child of God or Nature, full of
goodness, with divine or evolutionary qualities latent
but always emerging into fuller expression. "We assert
the goodness of the individual person; we see the
individual as the child of God.... We see humans
standing high on the evolutionary ladder, with great
potential for further growth, and even now possessing
evidence of the divine."25
David Parke, discussing Unitarian
history, notes, "Unitarianism broke its chains during
the nineteenth century. The chain of doctrine, which
bound previous generations to the Bible and to Christ,
was cast off leaving men free to seek and affirm God
within themselves as Reason, Soul and Conscience."26
Emerson stated what is a common belief
among many UUs today, concerned as they are with social
action and justice.
If a man is
at heart just, then in so far is he God; the safety of
God, the immortality of God, the majesty of God, do
enter into that man with justice.... The sublime is
excited in me by the great stoical doctrine, ‘Obey
thyself.’ That which shows God in me, fortifies me.
That which shows God out of me [Christianity], makes
me a wart and a wen.27
Indeed,
prefiguring New Age teaching, Unitarian Universalists
believe that we only obey God when we obey ourselves.
God has no meaning apart from Man. "For me, the
Eucharist is experiencing what Christ experienced: the
willingness to pay any price, even death to maintain
integrity and to make the claim, ‘I am God.’"28
UU minister Richard Fewkes asserts: "The divinity of
Christ points to the divinity in humankind.... A
difference in degree, perhaps, but not a difference in
kind or nature.... Perhaps all of us can also learn to
respect the same divinity in all people, including
ourselves. Christ’s declaration, ‘I and my Father are
one,’ becomes the birthright of all humanity."29
The Afterlife
For UU followers, human reason and logic
provide the tools for judging what may or may not occur
after death. Many UUs have attacked the idea of heaven
and hell as immoral. This was the view of William Ellery
Channing (1780-1842), the leader of New England
Unitarianism. Seeming to deny that one can come to love
God because of His love and holiness, Hosea Ballou, a
contemporary of Channing and—according to UU historian
Cassara— "the greatest thinker produced by the
Universalist movement," declared that "the preaching of
future rewards and punishments, for the purpose of
inducing people to love God and moral virtue, is not
only useless, but pernicious."30
However, the Bible teaches that the very
reason we love God is because He loved us first (1 John
4:19). In addition, many biblical passages teach that
God is going to reward those who love Him far beyond
what they can ever imagine, so the preaching of future
rewards is also an inducement to love God. Further,
preaching divine judgment is clearly an inducement to
moral virtue and has been for 2,000 years. Even Jesus
taught it!
I tell you,
my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the
body and after that can do no more. But I will show
you whom to fear: Fear him who, after the killing of
the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I
tell you, fear him (Lk. 12:4-5).
Further, "Our fathers disciplined us for
a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines
us for our good, that we may share in his holiness"
(Heb. 12:10).
Many UU adherents do not claim to know
about the afterlife; however, UU ideas on the subject
run the gamut from non-existence to a basically
spiritistic worldview. The one thing all UUs seem
certain of is that there is no biblical heaven or hell.
Reverend Albert Pery declares that UU believers "are
confident that they will not be punished in a
‘Hereafter’ for errors and sins which they may have
made; nor do they expect others, even those who disagree
with them, to so suffer."31
The reason is because, according to "reason" and human
sentiment, it is totally "unthinkable for God, as a
loving Father, to damn any of his children everlastingly
to hell. The Nicene Creed must then be in error."32
Waldeman
Argow, minister emeritus of the First Unitarian Church
in Toledo, Ohio, after discussing the UU diversity of
beliefs on immortality, asserts concerning the biblical
views that "it seems safe to say that no Unitarian
Universalist believes in a resurrection of the body, a
literal heaven or hell, or any kind of eternal
punishment."33
Similarly, John Booth declares:
Merely to
accept a particular religious doctrine will not change
one’s eventual fate, or insure eternal bliss; but to
live in the spirit of truth and goodness will have its
own reward on earth and, whatever may be true of the
afterlife, in the future. Most Unitarian Universalists
feel certain there is no physical measurable heaven or
hell of future existence.... [However] concerning the
immortality of influence they hold no doubt.34
In a 1966
National Opinion Research Center questionnaire, only
10.5 % of UU people polled stated a belief in personal
existence after death, reflecting their rationalist and
humanist presuppositions.35 Today this figure
would probably be much larger, a result of the
increasing influence of NDE (Near Death Experience)
research, parapsychology, the New Age and Eastern
religious and occult ideas on UU.36
Regardless,
the average UU member seems much more concerned with
this life than any possible next life. Reflecting
evolutionary presuppositions, he believes death is a
normal part of life, not something abnormal. Whatever
may be the case after death, man secures immortality in
the lifestream of humanity, not necessarily in his own
continued personal existence. Reverend Tom Owen-Towle,
of the First Unitarian Church in San Diego, stated that
"death is not only real and natural, but it seems to me
to be eminently desirable." Speaking of the "glory of
life" and the "majesty of death," he stated that "both
forces are holy." (And in a typical caricature of
heaven, he said that it was boring, being characterized
by a "terrible constancy with no further growth nor
change taking place."37
Certainly,
for the typical UU, death is not the spiritual enemy of
mankind that the Bible declares it is (1 Cor. 15:26).
The Reverend Donald Harrington declares that "death is
only an incident in life which brings to an end that one
small part of the total evolving-life and makes possible
the continuing renewal."38
The Occult
Due to its humanism and rationalism, the
occult does not have a predominant place in the UU
worldview. At least not under that name. Still, anyone
who wished to pursue occult interests would not
necessarily be frowned upon; it is simply up to them.
However, the mysticism of religious humanism and
parapsychology, the scientific approach to the occult,
claiming to scientifically explore the "hidden or divine
powers" of man, would be more consistent with the UU
worldview, in which spiritual openness and tolerance for
all sorts of religious humanism is only a step away from
the world of the occult.39
The following statement by one UU
minister suggests an openness to the occult through
subjectivism and a responsiveness to generalized
transcendence:
I used to
believe in an anthropomorphic god who governed
everything, especially me. I shifted to a being of
awesome power and purpose but less personal and
divested of human trappings. Then I lost any operative
concept of deity. I now am open and responsive to
signs of transcendence in my life. Where will my
wrangling-with-the-god notion take me next?40
Other UU followers are more openly New
Age, as indicated by the large percentage (46 %)
classifying themselves as humanist (religious as opposed
to secular humanism has a strong New Age connection) and
over 20 % classifying themselves as theist, mystic or
Buddhist.
Notes
1 Waldeman
Argow, "Unitarian Universalism: Some Questions
Answered," UUA pamphlet, p. 13.
2 Conrad
Wright, Three Prophets of Religious Liberalism:
Channing, Emerson, Parke (Boston, MA: Beacon
Press, 1978), p. 137.
3 W. Argow,
op cit., p. 6.
4 David
Parke, The Epic of Unitarianism Original Writings
from the History of Liberal Religion (Boston, MA:
Beacon Press, 1969), p. 123.
5 Gilbert
Phillips in Brandock Lovely (ed.), "Unitarian
Universalist Views of Jesus," pp. 7-8, UUA pamphlet
6 Quoted by
Richard Fewkes, in Brandock Lovely (ed), op cit., UUA
pamphlet, p. 5; cf. Parke, op cit, pp. 72-76.
7 Richard
Mazur, "Viewpoints Within Unitarian Universalist
Christianity," p. 5, UUA pamphlet.
8 Wright,
Three Prophets of Religious Liberalism, p. 99.
9 Jack
Mendelsohn, Why I am a Unitarian Universalist
(Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1966), p. 43.
10 W. Argow,
op cit., p. 9, October 1978, no. 938, UUA pamphlet.
11
Mendelsohn, Why I Am a Unitarian Universalist,
p. 31.
12 Wright,
op cit., p. 144.
13
Transcribed Sermon, May 6, 1979, "Our Brand of
Salvation," First Unitarian Church of San Diego, pp.
5-6.
14 Ibid.,
pp. 5-6.
15
Mendelsohn, "Meet the Unitarian Universalist," p. 10,
UUA pamphlet.
16
"Introducing Unitarian Universalism," pp. 9-10, UUA
pamphlet.
17 "Meet
the Unitarian Universalist," p. 17, UUA pamphlet.
18 Ernest
Cassara, Universalism in America (Boston, MA:
Beacon Press, 1971), p. 254, quoting Dr. John Van
Schaik, Jr., in 1925.
19 John
Booth, "Introducing Unitarian Universalism," UUA
pamphlet, p. 16, emphasis added.
20 Wright,
op cit., p. 76.
21 From
ibid., pp. 77-78.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.,
p. 142.
24 G.
Marshall, "Unitarian Universalists Believe," p. 2, UUA
pamphlet.
25 Ibid.
26 Parke,
op city., p. 68.
27 Ibid.,
pp. 106, 109.
28 Vern
Barnet, "Unitarian Universalist Views of the
Sacraments," March, 1978, p. 5, no. 8968-16, UUA
pamphlet.
29 Fewkes
in Lovely (ed.), p. 65.
30 Cassara,
op cit., pp. 142, 17.
31 Robert
Storer (ed.), "Unitarian Universalist Views of God,"
p. 9, UUA pamphlet.
32 J.
Mendelsohn, "Meet the Unitarian Universalists," p. 14,
March 1974, UUA pamphlet.
33 Fewkes
in Lovely (ed.), p. 65.
34 J.
Booth, "Introducing Unitarian Universalism," p. 15,
UUA pamphlet.
35
"Unitarian Universalist Views of Death and
Immortality," pp. 2, 10-11, UUA pamphlet.
36 Ibid.,
pp. 10-11; cf. Wilson and Weldon, Occult Shock and
Psychic Forces, section III.
37 Thomas
Avon-Towle, "Both Forces Are Holy," pp. 7-11,
(transcript of sermon).
38 D.
Harrington, "I Believe," p. 4, April 1977, no.
4006-02, UUA pamphlet.
39 See Gary
North, Unholy Spirits: New Age Humanism and the
Occult (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1986).
40 Sermon
transcript, "What’s Religious About Us?" p. 3, Rev.
Thomas Owen-Towle, Feb. 4, 1979, First Unitarian
Church of San Diego.
|
|
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"

CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS

Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?

|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute |