Reignite

This is an anecdote I heard recently. It wasn't from a Unitarian, but from a progressive Christian: "I was talking to my neighbour who's an atheist. And she said to me, 'I'm not religious, but you know what? If I was going to go to a church, I would go to your church.'" This is the kind of thing that is said by Unitarians, and other religious progressives as a satisfying kind of story that enables us to say to ourselves, "see, we are on the right path, lot's of rational people really agree with us!" I've probably said something like that myself in the past. The problem is that pesky "if". That "if" has become louder and louder in my mind. Because if we really hear that "if" we would hear what the sentence really says, " If I was going to go to a church, I would go to your church... but I'm not. I never will and it's not something that interests me in the slightest. I vaguely approve of wh...

I keep coming back to the idea that there might be two or more mutually incompatible visions of Unitarianism in Britain. I'm very aware, for example, that there are several different strands of Quakerism in the United States - Liberal Friends, Pastoral Friends, Conservative Friends, and Evangelical Friends. They share the same roots but are today quite radically different from one another in worship, organisation, and theology. I'm wondering if something like that exists, under the surface, in British Unitarianism. If there are, perhaps, two Unitarianisms. Unitarianism A defines Unitarianism as an individualistic, liberal movement that is defined by values but tries to remain neutral in matters of belief. Unitarianism B defines Unitarianism as a basically heretical form of Christianity that has taken on Anabaptist radicalism, Enlightenment liberalism, and Emersonian individualism, but is still basically Christian. It is interesting to note that the General Assembly...