Skip to main content

What is dying?

British Unitarianism came from many different sources. The source of much Unitarianism was the old Presbyterian churches dating back to the Great Ejection in 1662, over the years these churches became increasinly liberal until they became Unitarian. Although Presbyterianism was the dominant strand, other movements did come into the Unitarian community. Unitarians came from Anglicanism (Lindsey), Methodist Unitarianism and the General Baptists. But these remained a minority that were absorbed into the majority.

Well what's that all got to do with anything? Well it means that the style (but not the polity) of Unitarianism is dominantly Presbyterian. And what can we say about Presbyterianism in the last few decades in the West? It's in decline. It's in a nose dive. The United Reform Church has halved it's membership since 1972. The Presbyterian Church USA is losing 50,000 members a year.

Liberal-moderate Protestantism is dying. I think this is largely about worship. I think hymns and sermons are just boring and aren't holistic enough for people today. Anglican-Catholic-Orthodox churches have the richness of the ritual which provides something people can plug into spiritually. Evangelical-Pentecostal-Charismatic churches have powerful preaching with a clear message, modern, uplifting songs and an emphasis on direct experience of the Holy Spirit. Quakers have a meditative spirituality that is appealing to many. Liberal-moderate protestantism cannot compete.

Which is fine. It's going, it's on the way out. But if Unitarianism can come from different sources in the early nineteenth century, maybe it can come from different sources again. Maybe Presbyterian Unitarianism is dead. But if Unitarianism can emerge within the Baptist tradition 200 years ago, maybe it can come from somewhere else today. Maybe Post-Evangelicals will come to a Unitarian understanding. Maybe alternative worship movements will become Unitarian. Maybe a coherent movement will arise out of the Progressive Christianity Network or even the 'new spirituality.'

I never much liked Presbyterian Unitarianism in any case. It will die. What's exciting is what will happen after that. It will happen in my lifetime. It's going to be a fun ride.



PS Happy Thanksgiving to Americans. Even though I couldn't see much point in it myself. It's just Christmas without presents.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think this was an excellent post, Stephen. Two things have resulted in me wondering whether I should walk away from Unitarianism entirely.

Firstly, I realise that my Unitarianism is essentially a theological position in relation to Christianaity. Yes, I'm a liberal but I just can't buy into the dominant mode of thinking within the Unitarian / UU denomination.

Secondly, worship is a big issue. I have attended a number of liberal Christian churches within Unitarianism but the worship style is, as you say, so archaic and boring.

I don't know what the future holds. I spoke to a leading URC minister some time ago and he commented that shortly after Unitarianism becomes extinct as a denomination within the UK, his church will follow.

But, as am sure you will have noted, there are many churches within the Unitarian General Assembly and URC who exist with minimal contact with their denominations. Some of these are relatively successful.

And so, I don't think we will see all churches close, but rather a slow fragmentation - sort of 'survival of the fittest' - and then the question is whether these will then come together under some new network - such as PCN Britain.
Anonymous said…
Well, is our relationship to Christianity one of belief that it offers insights that other religious traditions don't, or is it simply that most of us were brought up with it in some form or other and we're used to it? Rather in the way that being a native speaker of English doesn't imply that other languages aren't just as effective at doing the job.

What worries me about Christianity is its popular image of God as an old man with a beard which - particularly given its on the whole fairly grisly history as a State religion (in any variant you care to name) - tends to prevent rather than to promote spiritual wholeness (individuation, in Jung's term).

If we have a future, it is as a "church" (for want of a word that isn't culturally specific) that has a unique offer - and one concept that holds meaning for me is that of "heresy" - the idea that it is only through an acceptance that heresy is OK - that, whether or not there is a God-Out-There, bearded or otherwise, we can only apprehend the divine within our selves.

Doubtless this is too difficult, and our places of worship will go on being empty except when someone organises a service of blessing for domestic pets...

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th