Talk:Unitarianism

Too long?

Just happened upon this article, but it immediately stuck me as a tad long. Should it be split off into section articles? --Impaciente 00:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Early issues

I'd like to focus on unitarian (small c) doctrine here, i.e., non-trinitarian Christian ideas. The UU church is only one example, albeit the best known.

Over the weekend, I hope to get the chance to compare Unitarianism and Universalism each with the Unification Church. Since I was a UU before joining the UC, I might actually be able to do this. Cheers. --Ed Poor

---

Shouldn't this page be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the Unitarian-universalists?

I agree. Republishing a bunch of stuff from 1911 about such a dynamic religious tradition is very misleading. This content could be saved in a separate article about the history of unitarianism or something, but the enduring characteristic of unitarianism which all modern unitarians I know talk about is its progressive or reformist or heretical nature. NealMcB 04:56, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

---

This page had in my view a fair degree of bias, which I attempted to rectify. Please feel free to comment.

The main changes I put in are following : The principal reason to deny the "Christian-ness" of Unitarians is dt lack of belief in the trinity + lack of belief in the God head of Christ. The rejection of the unitarian baptism is simply expression of this much deeper conflict.

Further at the bottom I altered two things: I do not believe it is fair to make semi-quantitative judgements about peace and harmony in other religious movements, at least not in an encyclopaedic text, nor do I believe that similar minded religious people are "progressive", though they might feel this way, but others might feel different - hence I have edited this reference too. Refdoc 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

neutrality concerns in 'impact and criticism'

In naming Unitarianism a heresy the author does neither cites sources, nor speaks to any diversity of Christian opinion. This gives the erronious impression that Unitarianism is universally considered heresy. The phrase "Orthodox Protestants" is not defined, which leaves it too vague. 'Orthodox' is often used as a self-labelling term by Protestans groups to validate their own theology and doctrine. 'Heterodox' is used in a derisive way for Protestant groups that do not agree with them. I would be very surprised to learn that there is any universally accepted definition of Protestant Orthodoxy because of the diversity of Protestantism.

The idea that "...toleration of Unitarianism, as well as other forms of theological Liberalism, signalled the religious decadence of the West" is a point of view limited to some Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and other theologically conservative groups, and should be identified as such. The critique of Unitarian churches as 'dead' is also from a particular point of view in a discrete group of Christians and should be identified as such. In seeking to critique Unitarians, the author must fairly reflect the diversity of Christian and other opinion. There is also nothing said about the impact of Unitarianism on religion and soceity, even though the section is titled "Impact and Criticism."
unsigned comment 16:43, 6 August 2005 207.69.136.199

I've changed the emphases of the section considerably, by adding new material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that UU is so interested in being non-dogmatic, that they are dogmatic about their non-dogmatism. Of course, this is more a comment on the philosophy of relativism, but it is a true criticism.

---

I tried to delete the last sentence in the "impact and criticism" section, but it was put back by another editor. I think that this sentence is particularly offensive and non-neutral. Up to that point the section doesn't do too bad in explaining the issues between Unitarians and orthodox Christians. But the last sentence basically is saying, to paraphrase, "But everyone knows that the Unitarians are wrong". I think the neutrality of the section will be improved by removing this sentence. At least come up with a decent citation. KEVP (If you are wondering, I am a Unitarian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.179.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with your assessment. Are you a unitarian Christrian, or a Unitarian Universalist? (I'm a UU.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a UU myself I can attest that i too have been accused of being in a cult by some ( so very funny ) but I believe the main misconception is that ALL UU's feel the same on the trinity etc. My experience has seen jews, christians and muslims all worshipping as UU's due to either the community aspect of the church or the need for a more "free" environment to worship in. Again, seems very hard to find people willing to be fair when writing these articles.D-cup 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

revised intro

Unitarianism is a system of Christian thought and religious observance which asserts that the singleness and simplicity of God are contradicted by the doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore rejects that doctrine. The term is also used to refer to Unitarian Universalism.

Some other Christians hold that denial of the trinity and the consequent lack of belief in the deity of Jesus Christ are positions untenable to Christianity, and that Unitarians are therefore followers of a non-Christian religion. They further point to what they regard as the invalidity of baptism administered without use of the trinitarian formula.

After a weekend of study, I've put in place a revised intro. I think it gives a broader and more up-to-date view of the essential and enduring characteristics of Unitarians. Also, currently perhaps 90% of Unitarians, in the US at least, would not consider their movement or themselves to be Christian. Details on what some Christians think of baptism (which isn't even practiced in any UU congregations I know of) don't seem very apropos. NealMcB 04:45, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

---

From above: "...90% of Unitarians...would not consider...themselves to be Christian..."

Perhaps the error of this is in the assumption that "Christian" equals "Orthodox", a mindset emanating from the latter far more than the former. In my somewhat diverse and lengthy experience, those of Unitarian persuasion are a diverse group who consider themselves true followers of Christ while regarding those who frivously reject true believers in Christ (such as themselves) counterfeits. Many, perhaps most, do not consider alternate views (trinitarianism, oneness or modalism, etc.) to affect others' standing with Christ. Further explanation can be found at http://www.scatteredsheep.com/nature_of_god.htm . Phil Maxwell phil@scatteredsheep.com

You did'nt go back far enough. The fact that there is only one God go as far back as the creation. The concept of the trinity did'nt materialize until the Roman Catholics decreed it in 325 AD. --Emico 15:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, sorry to be disrepectful but I do not believe in a creation and as such believe that man created god ironically as a means for explaining his own "creation". Perhaps it needs clarification that ANYONE of any belief is welcome in the UU church/ community. I really don't mean to offend but referring to somethinbg going as far back as "the creation" in my mind is a fallacy as such an event (IMHO) never happened. Again, I am so sorry if this offends but as a good UU I have been taught to speak up at times.D-cup 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps Christian in the Introductory paragraph,should be qualified in every instance,since Orthodox and Catholic "brands" of Christianity adhere to Trinitarian doctorine,but followers of Arius and some minority groups,that still claim Christianity,as their larger designation aren't Trinitarian.Sochwa 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Text added to article by anon

An anon user added the following to the beginning of the 'Origins' section:

PLEASE NOTE: THE WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE HAS THE POSITION ON GOD OF UNITARIANISM CONFUSED WITH THE POSITION OF APOSTOLIC ONENESS CHURCHES. THEIR VIEWS ARE EXTREMELY DIFFERENT FROM UNITARIANS WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST. ONENESS APOSTOLICS WOULD RATHER LOOSE THEIR LIVES THAN DENY THE LORDSHIP OF THEIR GOD, JESUS THE CHRIST.

I cut it from the article but put it here for discussion if the point needs noting - David Gerard 10:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to focus on unitarian (small c) doctrine here, i.e., non-trinitarian Christian ideas. The UU church is only one example, albeit the best known.

Over the weekend, I hope to get the chance to compare Unitarianism and Universalism each with the Unification Church. Since I was a UU before joining the UC, I might actually be able to do this. Cheers. --Ed Poor

---

Shouldn't this page be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the Unitarian-universalists?

I agree. Republishing a bunch of stuff from 1911 about such a dynamic religious tradition is very misleading. This content could be saved in a separate article about the history of unitarianism or something, but the enduring characteristic of unitarianism which all modern unitarians I know talk about is its progressive or reformist or heretical nature. NealMcB 04:56, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

---

This page had in my view a fair degree of bias, which I attempted to rectify. Please feel free to comment.

The main changes I put in are following : The principal reason to deny the "Christian-ness" of Unitarians is dt lack of belief in the trinity + lack of belief in the God head of Christ. The rejection of the unitarian baptism is simply expression of this much deeper conflict.

Further at the bottom I altered two things: I do not believe it is fair to make semi-quantitative judgements about peace and harmony in other religious movements, at least not in an encyclopaedic text, nor do I believe that similar minded religious people are "progressive", though they might feel this way, but others might feel different - hence I have edited this reference too. Refdoc 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Conflating Unitarianism with Unitarian Universalism.

The article equates all Unitarians with UUism. This is terribly misleading, since there are three different schools of Unitarian thought:

• Unitarian Universalism
• Rationalist Unitarianism
• Biblical Unitarianism

The first group is adequately defined in the article; the second is conspicuous by absence; the third is mischaracterised as a branch of the first, with the theology of its pioneers (such as Servetus) left largely to the reader's imagination.

I shall correct this when I have more time. --Teutonic Knight 14:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The three aren't quite so separate and distinct. If I am correct, the Unitarian side of UUism grew from the Rational Unitarians, which itself grew from the Biblical Unitarians. Regardless of whether I'm correct or not, I believe you are correct that there are, at least historically, different kinds of Unitarianism. Would you be so kind as to modify the article as you see fit to clarify? - UtherSRG 17:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While they may share a common origin, this does not make them any less separate and distinct. After all, Protestantism sprang from Catholicism, but who would say that the two are not "separate and distinct" in every essential way?

Anyhoo, I'll chuck in a few definitions to clarify the point and see how we go from there. --Teutonic Knight 12:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorted. Let me know what you think. --Teutonic Knight 13:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice. I've modified it some to fit the wiki format better, giving the "Forms" section a heading and therby necessitating the historical sections be grouped under another heading. I'm sure there's lots more work that's needed before this article is "complete", though. It would be good to try to point to parts in the history when Rationalist though enters the picture, since where BU and RU overlap is probably the fuzziest area. Oh, and it's Unitarian Universalism, not the other way around. *grins* - UU UtherSRG 15:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) I'm new to wiki, so you'll have to be patient while I find my way around the various protocols. :P I'll do some more work on the historical specifics when I have more time, but the general picture is this: BU was born in the 1st Century AD; RU was born during the post-Enlightenment era (partly as a result of Christianity's encounter with the new rationalism) and UU was born when Universalism was finally taken to its logical conclusion (viz. that if God is going to save all of us at some point in the future, it obviously doesn't matter what we believe in the meantime.) --Teutonic Knight 15:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem. We all have to work together. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like your latest edits. Great work!  :) --Teutonic Knight 10:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Teutonic Knight, your "logical conclusion" is quite biased and is no valid ground for the article or a discussion on contemporary UUism. If belief depends solely on God's judgement on a final day, then you deny personal responsibility, and all moral behavior is based upon blackmail: behave as I like, or you are doomed. OTOH it does not correspond to historical evolution of both religious movements. --Jdemarcos 18:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

History section

Isn't the subtitle "Early origins" redundant? Maybe, "Origins and early history" soverman 17 Jun 2005 0417 (UTC)

The history section is very confusing to read, I think we need to add more summaries Sep 27th 2005

Germany

I experimented with a bullet format in the Germany section. How does this look?Tydaj 21:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unitarian vs. unitarian

This word has two distinct meanings whether it is capitalized or not. A Unitarian is or was a member of particular religion, Unitarianism, which is now mostly embodied in Unitarian Universalist Association. On the other hand, a unitarian is one who holds unitarian beliefs, primarily expressed as a rejection of the trinity. There are many religions which espouse unitarian beliefs, and not all Unitarians are indeed unitarian (very few Quakers quake either). To most Unitarian Universalists, I would venture to say, the question of whether there is or is not a trinity is not particularly important to their religion.

I would suggest that all "upper-case" Unitarian aspects of this page be merged with the article on Unitarian Universalism, and this one only deal with the "lower-case" unitarianism as a belief. Then links from other unitarian religions are not confused with Unitarian Universalism. shoaler 17:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While you are correct in your assessment of the distinction between Unitarianism and unitarianism, I disagree with your solution. This article deals with (to some degree) both "U" and "u", primarily the history of the christian heresy of "u" and how it has found its way through the years. If anything, this article is lacking other avenues that unitarianism has taken besides into modern Unitarianism. Further, Unitarian Universalism is primarily a United States phenomenon; the predominant Unitarianism outside of the US is often more Christian unitarianism than Unitarian Universalism. I intive you to be bold and add sections to the article to make it more complete, as well as to do the same with other articles. - UtherSRG 21:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Other examples of unitarians would be of interest. The Iglesia ni Cristo is notably vigorous in unitarian belief - but currently would be very difficult to slot into the article without a major overhaul, as it doesn't fit the generalisations of the introduction and elsewhere. For instance, it's highly vociferous in its 'one true church' stance. RayGirvan 02:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

I just knew any attempt to document this would cause problems. Beware all edits by Emico on the topic of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC). He is the subject of a current Request for Arbitration for obstructing edits on other related pages. The INC is described in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000) as "The largest Protestant church in the Philippines ... Based on a literal reading of the Bible, unitarian in christology..." therefore its inclusion alongside types of Bibilical Unitarianism is valid. RayGirvan 02:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• [Oxford] defines protestants as separated or disunited from the Roman Catholic church, which the INC did not do. It's obvious your source did not research carefully either. Please check your facts thoroughly before posting. Note that Raygirvan is one of people who started the arbitration because of exchanges similar to this. --Emico 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • It may be that the article, Nontrinitarian, is a better fit for the remark regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo, RayGirvan. This is not because "Protestant" and "unitarian" do not properly describe the group according to ordinary conventions. Rather, there are extraordinary conventions at work here - nontrinitarian groups sometimes strongly object to being called "Protestant". The reason given by Emico is a typical objection. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Hmm. OK. I suppose it's down to the slant of this article, which focuses on Unitarians (the specific area of religious thought) rather than unitarians (ie non-trinitarians). Still, Oxford is a thoroughly respectable reference, so I don't feel too bad about citing its classification. RayGirvan 01:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI: There's an active conversation about this issue at Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Unitarian.

Hungarian / Romanian

I am curious as to the reason that some place names in the section Transylvania and Hungary have been changed from their Romanian name to the Hungarian form. I'm not trying to put forth an opinion on this, I'd just like to know how one would determine which is the better choice. -Tydaj 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether you're Hungarian or Romanian? There have been hot disputes of similar issues of Eastern European names. I'd generally go with the name that was current at the time the article was discussing; I might go with just the current name if it's well-known and the article just mentioned well-known cities.--Prosfilaes 18:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

But Transilvania is a part of Romania so the name must be the romanian version.

Translvania is now part of Romania, but at the time most of things in this article happened, Romania didn't even exist. We write about Constantanople and Babylon where appropriate, not Istanbul and Baghdad. --Prosfilaes 22:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Another important point is that the Transylvanian Unitarian Church is mostly Hungarian-speaking, as the original (i.e. non-immigrant) population of Transylvania is, and names of individuals and places in Transylvanian Unitarian documents are always written it its Hungarian form. --Jdemarcos 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

American Unitarian Conference reference corrected

Originally the article stated that the American Unitarian Conference has a creed. Fact is, it does not. So I corrected it. Peace.

Reform Judaism Equivalent?

I understand that the Unitarians have arrived from a different tradition. Still, considering where they are today, wouldn't it be a fair assessment to make the comparison between them and Reformed Jews? --Philopedia 19:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In what sense? --Tydaj 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Unitarians follow one God, not three and accept the metaphoric content of the Hebrew Bible. They share with reform jews an anti-dogmatic, intellectual and ethical approach which emphasises tolerance and compassion; champions liberal causes, are open to scientific enquiry and feature a broad diversity of outlooks within their own ranks. Turning the question around, how can you tell them apart? --Philopedia 11:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason for doing that. Unitarianism is not a form of Judaism. For a comparison with Reformed Judaism, I would rather suggest a historical pro-Jewish split from Unitarianism called Sabbatarianism. --Jdemarcos 06:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Unitarians follow one [Christian] God, not three - this may be true of classical (read 19th century) Unitarianism, but as Unitarianism in America became less a Christian religion and more a universal religion, the emphasis on Christian dogma was gradually removed. The process of merging with the Universalists in the late 50s and early 60s also moved the movement away from Christianity (although it did more to move Universalists away from Christianity). [They] accept the metaphoric content of the Hebrew Bible - no more so than the New Testament or the Quran or the writings of Buddha or the teachings of science, etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

They are similar in that both are liberal religions, but as they pointed out, there are also a number of differences. Unitarians (that aren't Unitarian Universalists) are/were still Christian, in one sense of the word or another. Jewish opinion over Jesus varies greatly, but to Unitarians he is still an important figure, even if he's not "God incarnate". --Tydaj 16:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The German Unitarians in Deutsche Unitarier are certainly not Christian. --Palnatoke 06:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As a UU I can tell you that in my particular church there are no bibles, we sing occaisional hymns, light a manora, have a christmas eve service, talk about ramadan, are eductaed on native american religions etc. IMHO I have no problem being labeled a protestant, but realize that I share little with them besides history. In my experience with UU anything goes.D-cup 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Christians

Today, most Unitarian Universalists do not consider themselves Christians, even if they share some beliefs quite similar to those of mainstream Christians. Isn't it only the catholics that beleive that you have to believe in the trinity to be a christian. --Pomegranite | talk 03:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there's quite a bit of Protestants that believe that. --Tydaj 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream unitarian, Islam, Judaism

This questions are not directed to Universalists.(I would like to assume there is a mainstream unitarian church but if there is none, ok) Is Jesus still an important figure and the New Testament, the 'bible' or the most authorative document? Are Judaism and Islam unitarian or considered unitarian? Are sacraments practised or useless, eg baptism, eucharist, jewish passover, blessing,etc.--Jondel 01:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the answers probably vary by particular church. There is no international Unitarian church, but there is the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists which is an association of different Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist bodies. Many more Unitarians than Unitarian Universalists consider themselves Christian. I know that, for example, the Romanian Unitarian church still places a strong emphasis on Jesus' teachings. I believe they also have something akin to confirmation. For an example of a unique Unitarian ritual, see Flower Communion, which was created to be distinct from the Eucharist and other Judeo-Christian rituals.

Often the distinction is made between "Unitarians" and "unitarians", the latter being anti-Trinitarians that do not belong to a Unitarian organization. Islam teaches that Jesus was human and that the Trinitarianism is a form of polytheism. Judaism also generally rejects Jesus being part of God, let alone a "rabbi." --Tydaj 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We know about Islam's view on Jesus and Judaism's view. Jesus was once at least a Rabbi. Is it is hard to categorize Judaism and Islam as unitarian, since the context or Unitarian is ussually associated with Christinanity isn't it? Most are former members of mainstream Christianity(?). I think I can say that the Bible is still significant as a reference to unitarians(?). There are some Christainity associated religions like the Jehovahs and Adventists, and Iglesia ni Cristo(which I 'm trying to categorize) etc and it would be good if we could distinguish them. --Jondel 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to distinguish again or against/exclude Universalists, which is too broad. Universalists might include Buddha, Shiva, etc. and direct this question to Unitarianism only.--Jondel 02:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

When speaking of Unitarian Universalism, it is quite difficult to seperate the two. Unless you mean traditional Unitarianism as seperated from UUism. --Tydaj 05:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In "Unitarian Universalism", the word Universalist refers historically to the Universalist Church, not to Buddha or Shiva. --Jdemarcos 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Some denominations want to be associated with Christianity (or Judaism) and feel that their religion is the only path. They will probably resist the idea of Universalism . In the INC talk page, an anonymous insists that INC is simply non-trinitarian and resists being associated with Unitarianism. There is a distinct section Nontrinitarianism#Other_groups_which_reject_the_Trinity_doctrine with only one member. They are as Tydaj says unitarian being anti-trinitarian. Universalism does not refer to Buddha or Shiva but the definition of Universal religion includes Buddhism and Hinduism which I'm sure the INCs will abhor being associated with. (I'm Catholic but the INC is a significant religion in the Philippines). --Jondel 00:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Unitarianism was moved by User:Herostratus to Unitarianism (theology) to make way from a disambig page, but the number of links pointing to it made that inadvisable. Thus, Herostatus and I both feel it should be moved back to Unitarianism (as it was before), and the disambig page merged into the existing one at Unitarianism (disambiguation). I don't anticipate any objections, but by all means post them if you have them. Be aware, though, that leaving the page where it is would mean changing a great many links to avoid the disambig page. Chick Bowen 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. OTOH I disagree with some information in the current disambig page (the item on Spanish politics --using the word in English makes no sense here, as it would be sth like "Unitarism" in English rather than "Unitarianism"). But now there is no discussion page available in the disambig page. So I suggest to implement the changes in order to go on with the discussion on what needs to be in the disambig page. --Jdemarcos 07:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, you'll notice that as of right now, Unitarianism and Unitarianism (disambiguation) are the same. Unitarianism (disambiguation), thus, is permanent and won't have to be moved. So you can start a discussion there or simply make the changes you feel need to be made. Chick Bowen 03:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please move it back. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

performed by User:MacGyverMagic Chick Bowen 16:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dickens a UU?

Notable Unitarian Universalists are Tim Berners-Lee (founder of the world wide web), Pete Seeger, Kurt Vonnegut, Christopher Reeve, Charles Dickens, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Uh, Dickens a Unitarian Universalist? I doubt it.

Not a UU, but Dickens a Unitarian for the most part of his life, yes. --Jdemarcos 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Dickens and Emerson to the Rational Unitarians category. If anyone thinks they belong elsewhere, feel free to change it. –Shoaler (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget John Adams and John Quincy Adams, both burried at the UU church in Quincy Ma.D-cup 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

History Focus

It seems to me like the article focuses too much on the history of Unitarianism, but not enough on the actual substance of Unitarianism. Agree/Disagree? Secos5 02:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

About Servetism

I disagree with the way Servetism is represented. Yes, it should be considered Biblical Unitarianism, but not as it is defined on this page. Servetus clearly believed Jesus was God himself. I have been reading through his book, Restitution of Christianity, in which he explains his views on God. He believed in One God, who was born into the world as Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ is seen as being fully God and fully man. The difference with his beliefs with Trinitarianism was that He saw God as one person rather than three. He believed the One God came in person as Jesus Christ. This is why I don't think his views are being accurately represented. The logos is seen as God's form, which manifested itself on earth. The logos is not seen as a separate thing from God, or any kind of lower created being. It should not go under the heading of: "God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God, but not God Himself". Let me know what ya'll think. Jasonschnarr 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Servetus's theology is close to Sabellianism, that affirmed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Modes of God, not different Persons. He said that Jesus was the son of God, i.e. that God was literally his father by impregnating Mary with His divine semen. Therefore the man Jesus participates in the substance of God. This participation is the manifestation of the eternal Logos that always existed within God, now becoming manifest in the flesh through Jesus the son (with a small "s") of God. That is why he died refusing to say: "Jesus is the eternal Son of God" and he said instead: "Jesus is the son of the Eternal God". I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. --Jdemarcos 17:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting this info? I've never seen anything in his beliefs about Jesus being born of divine semen, born with the Divine Soul, yes, but never from divine semen. And the reason he refused to say "Eternal Son of God" is because he refused to believe that Jesus was a second person in a trinity of persons, and did not believe that Jesus was already in heaven with God the Father before He was born; this wouldn't make sense to him, since he believed God was One Person. With the 'small s' thing you are implying that he thought Jesus was somehow less than God, which is not the case. He very clearly thought Jesus was God Himself. Why is this so hard for people to conceptualize? He thought Jesus was Jehovah's human form on earth, born of Jehovah's Spirit, in the form of the man Jesus Christ. He literally thought God was born, not a second person in a trinity of persons. This goes along with his willingness to say son of God, since this did not necessitate the idea of a second person. He believed that being the son of God, or human manifestation of God, that the logical conclusion would be that He was God Himself, since there is only One God, or One Divine Person, in his view. He reasoned that God could not be split into separate beings or persons. Yes, Jesus is seen as being born of the Logos, which is God's form; this form had simply not been made flesh yet. He is not only seen as "participating in the substance of God", but fully receiving the Substance of God into His human form, which made His human form completely One with the Divine Substance from which it was born. And, no, you did not clear anything up, but only defended a false impression of what Servetus believed. He cannot justifiably be put in the category of believing that Jesus was not God Himself, since this is exactly opposite of what he did believe. Jasonschnarr 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry, rough translation from Spanish, which is the edition (1980) I work with)

"(The difference between earth and water) is also proved by the generation of Christ itself, that shows the infinite distance between those elements, as in Christ three superior elements converge, that he took from his father's substance: as our paternal semen is watery, full of aerial and fiery spirit, so it is as well, in the case of Christ, that cloud from God's oracle, watery, aerial and fiery, condensed as water and that, shadowing Mary, was the dew of his natural generation, with no part of it that was earthy. That is, in foetuses, there is nothing earthy coming from the father, but from the mother..." Michael Servetus, Christianismi Restitutio, page 159 in the original 1553 edition.

I agree that Servetus said that Jesus was God, as he was the son of God and the Logos become flesh, and thus becoming truly the Son (but not eternal, because the Son is only after Jesus being born). And therefore Jesus was God himself, as far as he participated in God's substance, "anointed by God's grace, exalted because he humiliated himself in preference over his companions" (De Trinitatis Erroribus, Book I). But at the same time Jesus was also truly a man, born of a woman: "If the Son was the logos, born without a mother, from a father, tell me how was he born? Through the womb, o maybe through the side?... So, as it has been said before, the oldest ones (i.e. the Church Fathers, my addition) admit that the Son is a creature from God and that, therefore, he was created. Therefore they do not speak about the metaphysical nature..." (DeTriErr, Book I).

Besides that, I think that this conversation should continue in the Servetus Talk page and not here, as it is only marginal to historical Unitarianism. --Jdemarcos 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I guess I want him to believe what Swedenborg did, but apparently there are some significant differences. I still think it is misrepresenting him by saying he didn't believe Jesus was God. That is my one solid point. I don't have access to my quotes right now, but when I do I'll put them down. He definitely states that Jesus is God Himself.

Yes he does. But inasmuch as Jesus incorporated the divinity of his Father in his own nature. It has been God's grace, that by giving birth to a human son, this son can be called God because he is the embodiment of the preexisting Logos, which is God itself. And since the divine powers have been granted to the Son, then the Son can be called God. This is Servetus's Christology in a few lines (it is much more complicated). Swedenborg was not a Servetian, and both of them were very original thinkers who had been influenced by others but who had quite different views and lived in very different cultural and social environments. Lately there has been a resurgence of Servetian studies in Spanish that are giving new light to his theology, which had been much misunderstood and simplified until now.--Jdemarcos 07:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming scheme

I understand the names Biblical Unitarian, Rational Unitarian, Unitarian Universalist and Evangelical Unitarian (although, as a Christian, would dispute the 1, 2 and 4 as being oxymorons!) but I'd like to see sources for thatt scheme. Particularly, as I say, given that mainstream Christians would dispute Biblical Unitarianism as being unbiblical, and most evangelicals would view Trinitarianism as being an essential evangelical belief. So that's to explain why I put the "citation needed" where I did. Wooster (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What you think as a Christian is completely irrelevant for the Wikipedia. What we need to discern is whether these are descriptive categories for the different varieties of Unitarianism found in history and in today's world. I think they are pretty good, regardless of one's religious convictions. --Jdemarcos 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I phrased that badly. I shall give two reasons which are as independent of personal conviction as I can make them. Given my first reason is about POV, you may understand that personal conviction is not entirely irrelevant.

1. They put forward a point of view: specifically that it is possible to be, say, evangelical and Unitarian. The term has been loaded, even accidentally. Do points of view not normally come with names attached?
2. They are in danger of presenting original research: who's to say there are only four strands? Classification systems need sources.

It would be better if we could get to an article which says, "So-and-so divides Unitarianism into four schools of thought: Biblical Unitarians &c."

Wooster (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what are the sources for this classification. AFAIK there is no single, independent study of all possible strands of Unitarian thought. I added the "Evangelical Unitarians" item to the list because I thought unfair not to include modern Bible-based antitrinitarian groups, such as the Christadelphians or the Biblical Unitarians. If you have a better label for them, please go ahead. But please do not confuse them with the original Biblical Unitarians because there is no historical continuity between them. --Jdemarcos 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought, see if I can come up with a better appellation. On the Biblical/Evangelical Unitarian split, I can see that there's no direct historical link, but on the other hand, it looks like they have conceptual/intellectual links: the approach seems broadly similar. They even end up in the same place sometimes (Socinianism, for instance). Would it be worth noting that? Wooster (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from reliance on the Bible, I can't see where they really meet. The Socinians were rather rationalistic in their approach to revelation, and they despised Anabaptists such as the Hutterites for their lack of scholarship and knowledge of classical languages. I don't see the same attitudes and approach to religion in modern Bible-based antitrinitarians. --Jdemarcos 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So in effect BUs sit in between EUs and RUs? Wooster (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not sure that I can fully support the classifications which have been used. The term 'Unitarian Universalism' refers to primarily to the organisation in the United States and to some extent Canada, and perhaps a few other places elsewhere. It does not and has never referred to Unitarians from places such as Britain or Germany, even if they do generally share the beliefs which have been outlined under that term. In other words, my point is that the term is American-centric, and that an alternative term should be used instead. I'm not sure what this could be though. hartlandcat (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2006

Proposed Split

Since this article is getting rather large, perhaps we should make a History of Unitarianism article out of the specific history by country that we have here now and write up an abbreviated international history for this article? --Tydaj 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. –Shoaler (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a History page, I suggest moving all country-related paragraphs (BTW, including the US) to their own articles, and create those that are missing. I will do that with the paragraph on Spain. --Jdemarcos 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags

I am tentatively recommending that two articles be merged here, Unitarian Christianity and Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications. Each seems to have originated as a POV fork of this article and parts are redundant with this (much better) article. I thought about nominating them for deletion, but it looks like they do have some information not contained here. I would like to hear your thoughts on whether content from these articles should be merged here. JChap2007 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the person proposing these changes states clear the reasons (perhaps in bullet points) for merging the two articles, or even considering them for deletion. Unitarian Christianity as a school of Christian thought, a significant historic movement and modern day faith community are in many ways distinct from the Unitarian-Universalist denominations - particularly in the United States.

Furthermore, in respect to the Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications page, there are good reasons for documenting this aspect of Unitarian Christianity in detail as the 'Unitarian Christian Church' is distinct in the way it is so loosely organised and to an extent, interdenominational.

I would suggest that anybody preparing to engage in this debate should conduct some research into the recent history of Unitarian-Universalism, and they will then be at least aware that there could be reasons for the proposed changes which go beyond simply wanting to maintain and develop useful Wikipedia pages. Steelson80 22:29, 12 November 2006 (GMT)

there could be reasons for the proposed changes which go beyond simply wanting to maintain and develop useful Wikipedia pages.

I just read that. If you're accusing me of improper motives for proposing the change, you had better produce some evidence. JChap2007 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply made a cautionary note regarding the proposed changes and subsequent discussion. Nothing more.Steelson80 21:00, 13 November 2006 (GMT)

I oppose a merger. Unitarian Christianity is a distinctive version of Unitarianism, from which the majority of modern Unitarians/UUs have greatly diverged (see the article cited in the intro, which indicates how few UUs today consider themselves Christians).

I do favor some restructuring. The bulk of the early history section of the Unitarianism article more properly belongs in the Unitarian Christianity article, since such history was made while Unitarianism was primarily a Christian movement or denomination. There ought to be a paragraph in the Unitarianism article about the religion's Christian roots, beginning with a link to the main history section in the Unitarian Christianity article, where a more thorough treatment is given.

Notice that the Unitarian Christianity article is part of a series of articles on Christianity. Notice also that the article on Unitarianism is not part of this same series. This difference is proper, because modern Unitarianism is not a primarily Christian religion (though there are Christians within the movement), while Unitarian Christianity (which includes historic Unitarianism roughly prior to the late 1800s) is a primarily Christian religion. This difference also helps illustrate why the two articles ought to remain separate. Nick Graves 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the Unitarianism article, which is primarily about the historical movement. You both are thinking of Unitarian Universalism, which is primarily about the present-day UUs. The major problem with a merger with the Unitarian Christianityarticle is that the term "Unitarian Christianity" was not used historically. Rather, the movement was simply called Unitarianism. "Unitarian Christianity" is a neologism.JChap2007 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the distinction between Unitarianism and UUism. However, it's important to note that this distinction is not sharp. There are still UUs whose beliefs are consistent with those of historical Unitarians, and the label Unitarian is still chosen by churches and individuals within the UUA to describe their religious identity. The label is even used as a self-identifier by those who are not Christians, or even theists.

True, Unitarian Christianity is a neologism, but it does accurately describe Unitarianism's Christian roots, as well as modern heirs to historical, Christian Unitarianism. It's a retronymn born of modern Unitarianism's departure from its historical form.

I'll admit I'm not certain what ought to be done about this, so I withdraw my opposition to the merger. I do think it's important to retain the infobox concerning the series of articles on Christianity, as Unitarianism was historically a Christian faith, and retains Christians in its membership even today. Nick Graves 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea about adding the infobox here, although some would dispute the notion that Unitarianism is really Christianity, as it differs from Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox Christians on important doctrinal points. Articles should be titled with the term most commonly used for the subject; here, Unitarianism in preference to "Unitarian Christianity." My main reason for proposing the merge was that the Unitarianism article may not contain enough information about modern Unitarians who follow Christ's teachings. I had considered just proposing Unitarian Christianity for deletion outright, as in its original form it was a POV-laden personal essay whose main purpose was to argue that the Trinitarians and the UUA were wrong and to promote the idea that modern day "Christian Unitarians" are/should separate from the UUA. It has the further problem that it does not cite its sources for its claims. I tried to clean up some of this, but much of the article just repeats Unitarianism. I do think that some of its information about modern "Unitarian Christians" (or whatever you want to call them), if verifiable in reliable sources. JChap2007 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not oppose the merger and cleanup of Unitarianism, Unitarian Christianity and Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications but would certainly oppose it being detached from the Christianity infobox. I do not accept that we are not part of Christianity simply because we differ from Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox Christians on important doctrinal points. Indeed, the importance of these doctrinal points varies across Christianity - which is why some Unitarian Christians find themselves attending churches affiliated to the United Church of Christ, United Reformed Church, Anglican Church etc. Also, it is quite misleading to say the Unitarian Christian Groups and Publicationsarticle was written to advocate schism (as I have read on a related talk page). For what it's worth, I originally created this article to provide a basic overview for those seeking information on specifically 'Unitarian Christian' groups and publications. This is something I (as owner of a popular Unitarian blog and mailing list) am asked for on a regular basis (and not just links). I therefore assumed it was information that is of interest and use. However, I accept it could form part of an improved Unitarian Christianity / Unitarianism article. Steelson80 21:04, 13 November 2006 (GMT)

Well, if it's going to be merged, the information should be verified in reliable sources. It should also be related from a neutral point-of-view. WP:NPOV#Minority Viewpoints may be instructive. I'm sure you created the article with the best of intentions, but to be honest, it read like a defense or advocacy piece about the subject rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. (Incidentally, the comment was on Talk: Unitarian Christianity, and, for what it's worth I was not the one who said it.) JChap2007 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that, using my freedom of opinion and expression that is so dear to Unitarians, and of course the author or others may disagree with me. I keep thinking that the Unitarian Christianity article is biased, and I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment by JChap2007 above, As I wrote in Talk: Unitarian Christianity, IMO the article seems to advocate schism because it falsely represents Unitarian Christianity as a movement on its own that is different and separate from worldwide Unitarianism and Unitarian Universalism. This has been slightly reduced through edits by several contributors, including myself. As an example of the initial tone of the article, see the affirmation that "Unitarian Universalists are considered Revisionist Unitarians, as they are syncretic and open to new ideas and concepts to the point of replacing their original principles of the Unitarian faith". This was stated in the original version of the article and was only recently removed from the article (and not by its author).

By the way, Steelson80, I find strange that you use a nickname that does not actually exist as a user of Wikipedia. So my suggestion to you is that you either create this user a user page or do not include links to a user page that does not exist. --Jdemarcos 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos: Steelson80 does exist as a user of Wikipedia. He/She has just chosen not to begin editing their user page. There is nothing inappropriate or underhanded about this.

I found that a page does exist that addresses Unitarianism's Christian roots and modern Unitarian Christians: Unitarian Christian Association. I believe the UUA also has an organization specifically for UUs (some of whom are no doubt Unitarians) who consider themselves Christian. Given the existence of these organizations for Unitarian Christians, it seems to me that Unitarian Christianity is not a mere neologism, and that it does deserve its own article within the series of articles about Christianity.

The main problem with the article right now is that it lacks references. Once those references are found and added so as to verify what has been written about Unitarian Christianity, I believe a merger would not be needed, or even appropriate. Nick Graves 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Steelson80 appears to be a registered user, but is just not logged in and so xer edits show up under xer IP number. Perhaps that is the reason for the confusion. And I agree it does not seem sneaky or underhanded.

By calling the term "Unitarian Christianity" a neologism, I seem to have introduced a red herring. Indeed, looking into this more I'm not even sure that calling it a neologism is completely accurate, as there was a sermon with that title given by a Unitarian minister named William Ellery Channing (it's in Wikisource and linked from the article). However, the term does not appear to have entered common use, just as Baptists don't generally call themselves "Baptist Christians," Methodists don't call themselves "Methodist Christians," etc.

The real issue is that Unitarian Christianity means the same thing as Unitarianism. There is no need to have two separate articles that cover the same exact topic. JChap2007 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction, Nick Graves. Apparently these Unitarian Christian pages were promoted by people from a Yahoo mailing list. This is perfectly correct and legitimate, as far as everybody is aware that Wikipedia articles are not the particular property of some individuals or groups, and that all users are entitled to make their own contributions to the published articles. We will probably hear more voices in the coming days on the merger issue. --Jdemarcos 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I found an article in which the term Unitarian Christianity is used and defined by an organization that uses this label for itself: American Unitarian Conference™: Unitarian Christianity. If there are groups which consider themselves to be Unitarian Christian, and if they distinguish themselves from other Unitarians (be they Humanists or syncretists, etc.) by using the term to describe themselves, then a separate article on Unitarian Christianity ought to remain. I do advocate improvement of the Unitarian Christianity article with references and removal of POV pushing. Nick Graves 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The group that you found distinguishes itself from "modern Unitarians" (Unitarian Universalists), This article is about historical Unitarianism, which that group claims to be a continuation of. Thus, it seems logical to merge discussion of it here, with a redirect at Unitarian Christianity. One way to look at solving this problem is what would we cover in Unitarian Christianity that is not already better covered in Unitarianism. JChap2007 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not find in the AUC Bylaws any reference to Christianity. Furthermore, in this page it is clearly stated that "The AUC has not laid down specifically Christian principles, leaving the members to choose their own path to God in true non-creedal fashion." Therefore your assertion that the AUC is using the "Unitarian Christian" label for itself, as you said above, is not confirmed by other texts found in the same website. --Jdemarcos 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That same section continues: "However, the majority of our members to date are Unitarian Christians, and we fully expect to found specifically Unitarian Christian fellowships." I was incorrect in saying that the organization identified itself as Unitarian Christian. However, the organization was clearly founded primarily to serve the interests of those who consider themselves Unitarian Christians. The US group and the UK group are evidence of a neo-traditionalist movement within Unitarianism which decries a loss of that faith's traditional Christian character.

I wouldn't care whether the articles were merged, as long as this neo-traditionalist movement of Unitarian Christians were adequately documented, and somehow remained part of the series of articles on Christianity. Nick Graves 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the AUC is not specifically Christian, according to their Bylaws. The AUC can be defined as a God-centered Unitarian organization. Whether they plan to plant Unitarian Christian churches or not is irrelevant, as far as the organization does not include Christianity in its self-definition. Probably what they mean is that they would love to attract Unitarians from the UUA, the UCC, and elsewhere. That they are successful in this effort or not remains to be seen. But I have read statements from the AUC founders saying that they welcome Deists and other non-Christians. I think it is useless to provide the exact quotes confirming this when the Bylaws are written in a way that include Christians but also non-Christians.

As for this so-called "neo-traditionalist Unitarian movement", I wonder if it is a real movement or just a few individuals here and there who protest against the pluralistic evolution of Unitarian Universalism and the liberal policies of the UUA. I think it is reasonable to question whether the statements of a few individuals loosely connected through a mailing list and a couple of blogs is sufficient reason to have their own article in Wikipedia as if they were an organized denomination on its own, or whether this is stretching reality a bit too much. --Jdemarcos 11:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the organization does exist to promote "Unitarian Christianity," that article is an invalid content fork of Unitarianism, as they discuss the same topic. Any article claiming that "Unitarian Christianity" is a new movement that should have its own article would have to be based on multiple, independent reliable sources that discussed such a movement. What that article should be called would be determined by how such reliable sources refer to it. The website is not an independent, reliable source for purposes of establishing notability (which we would need to establish in order to have a separate article). JChap2007 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. The 'Unitarian' community and traditions are confusingly broad and complex and, unfortunately, several of the major, modern constituent movements which claim a place under the umbrella term 'Unitarian' - think UUA - are so far removed from historical Unitarianism - read Unitarian Christianity - and from those movements which retain historical unitarian Christian theologies - principally the Unitarian Churches of Transylvania and Hungary - that their inclusion is largely based only on their retention of the name. To judge the 'unitarianism' of older, more established traditions that are still in step with the unitarian Christian tradition from the perspective of nominally unitarian movements such as the UUA that has over the past century morphed into something that rightly belongs beyond the limits of unitarianism - read unitarian protestant Christianity is cruel, destructive and historically anachronistic.

The best solution might be to retain an article on 'Unitarianism' which attempts the difficult task of surveying all unitarianisms, both Christian and post-Christian, providing a view of their relationships through the history of the term and the varying theologies / philosophies embraced by the many disparate 'Unitarian' groups and to maintain a separate article on 'Unitarian Christianity' focusing solely on the original unitarian - a particular form of anti-trinitarianism - theological tradition and its inheritors through history and in the modern day.

Attention: Please read Wikipedia:Civility. It is not civil to engage in “ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another.” This includes implying that there is a misuse of usernames and second guessing motives for writing wikipedia pages. If you feel the need to continue, please refer to Don't be a dick (From: JH 2007)