Thoughts on the UU

The origin of the Unitarian church goes back to the 1500s in Europe. It was founded by a man who denied the Trinity and spread from there. Thus, the Unitarian Church has never been Christian and does not claim to be. It is in its own category.

In the 20th century at some point (around the 50s or 60s I think), the Unitarian Church merged with the Universalist church and thus became the Unitarian-Universalist Church.

I've attended Unitarian churches several times before I was a Christian and once since (to observe). I'm often asked about the Unitarian Church because people get them mixed up with Unity (a New Thought offshoot) and the Unification Church (Rev. Moon's cult).

Since they have no creed, the Unitarians readily embrace anyone as long as you don't try to say your beliefs are the only true beliefs. Most people in Unitarian churches are agnostics, humanists, New Agers, a few Neopagans, some dabbling into Eastern religions, maybe some atheists, and people who have no specific beliefs at all.

No regenerated believer would be able to join or continue in a Unitarian Church since God is not really a focus and if God is mentioned, it is not the Biblical God but sort of a vague fuzzy god.

 

The UU's are thoroughly apostate as an organisation.

They believe the "all roads lead to God" idea. You can be a witch, a pagan, a druid, a lesbian, a male homosexual, a transvestite, a Catholic, an ultra liberal protestant,...on and on and on. It makes absolutely no difference, you will be accepted into the fellowship and warmly affirmed in whatever you believe.

Except of course if you believe and regularly articulate the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness. Then you will probably be asked to leave the fellowship.

My understanding is that at one time there were "Unitarians" and "Universalists", and at some point in time they just decided to join up and blend the two together

Someone routinely drops off their used UU monthly magazines where I work.

Its amazing what they affirm as being good.

God help them.

 

Excellent point. Why bother? I attended one of their services at the church used by my former Anglican Church and felt my time would have been better spent in a service organization meeting.

Ever glanced at one of their hymnals? The older ones do not use 'inclusive' language ie:'Mother Goddess' and the like.

 

Who would bother attending a church that believes nothing?

 

Membership at First Church Boston (now a Welcoming UUA Congregation) is based on the same church covenant of its Puritan founders of nearly four centuries ago.

 

Mark with what, though?

They don't believe anything, so there's nothing to mark with.

 

Lots of Same sex marriages (blessings) performed at UU churches.

 

I too ask myself why anyone attends these churches ... but they do. Further I wonder how/why members give. I suspect tithing is a foreign concept, thought of as legalistic.

But there is a strong commitment among UU's I have known for liberal social causes. I presume you can raise money for those things ... but wonder about paying salaries and building buildings. However, here in Washington, the Ethical Society, which is, despite its name, a "church" affiliated with the UUA, recently built a lovely new building and called a pastor for the first time in a long while. Some $$ are coming in from somewhere.

 

You misspelled "weird."

 

In my experience, the UU was the stepping stone to into Christianity.
I had been struggling with it in my college years, and everyone was nominally "religious", and associated with these Churches that "officially" taught Hell and that fornication and evolution were wrong; though most weren't really living it. So it was very confusing.
At the very end, after I did a paper on a short story about a skeptical boy and an old time minister, the professor approaches me with literature from this UU church in town, and it was like "WOW! a church that actually believes what I believe; that there is no one way; the Bible is not literal, everyone is good and not bound for Hell, etc".

So the last three weeks, I went.
It did seem strange, that they would be structured just like a church, with a "worship service" (I even wondered to myself; "what are they worshipping, then?" since no one particular God is being addressed). They even had this little rite with a flaming chalice (or is it silver chalice? One is a book, and the other was the UU practice, and I always got them mixed up).

I did sense in my conscience a sense of phoniness in them taking the forms of the church, yet rejecting the theological substance. (I did not yet realize there were so many denomination churches, which differed little from them in beliefs, though they still held onto the name and the creed books or statements of faith. I used to hear preachers always talking about "all these churches that do not believe/teach the Word of God", and wondered what they were talking about).
To most people who had rejected Christianity (such as my parents), one of the prime complaints is "I couldn't see why I had to be in a Church to worship a creator". So now, here are those who rejected any solid doctrine of the creator first, yet held onto "church". I got a sense of "look at us; we're 'churchgoers'; we're still 'good' even without that old Bible/creed".

When I came home, I did not find a UU Church right away, but I did quickly become exposed to Armstrongism, and went with that somewhat. So now I had accepted the Bible and Christ, but it was still an aberrant interpretation of it. Two years later, I came fully into orthodox evangelicalism.

 

I have none. I usually don't occupy myself with thoughts of the unimportant.

 

I was looking for some history to the 'Trinitarian Universalist' church building of which our Anglican Church was using. It seems there was much conflict over a merger of the Trinitarian vs Unitarian Universalist post to WWII. Ellworth Reamon was the pastor of the church that once was the largest church in the Fort Plain area of New York. He was also held the presidency of the Universalist Church of America.

If you are a universalist, why would anyone care if a person is a trinitarian or unitarian?
Here is an interesting note about Ellsworth:

'Theologically, Reamon was a staunch Universalist Christian. "In my opinion," he wrote in 1947, "the greatest tragedy that could befall the Universalist Church . . . would be the denial of the Lordship of Jesus. Loyalty to Jesus as our 'spiritual authority' is and should remain the one basic loyalty which binds us all together." Thus in the period following World War II he opposed attempts to redefine Universalism as "a religion for one world," inclusive of all faiths. Likewise, he opposed attempts to combine Universalism with Unitarianism, regarding the latter as overly rational and humanistic and fearing that Universalism would lose its identity.'

I often wondered what the attraction to this church once was as it had seating for over 800 people and documents discovered in the attic showed over 1,000 members on its roles.
When we began to use the building they had between 8-10 people attending on any given Sunday.

 

Yeah, I always got the sense that Universalism was originally aimed to be a Christian denomination (or at least a sect like JW's, etc; who still profess Jesus and the Bible, though interpreting it in an unorthodox fasion), and not eclecticism, which is the technical name of the belief system of UU. And of course, "unitarianism" was originally a generic term for a one-Person Godhead (dynamic monarchianism) theory, and not some all-inclusive religion.
But if either had liberalized enough to hold those doctrines, it figures they would eventually go eclectic and merge.