The answer has to be yes and no. There is perplexing diversity among Christians within Unitarianism, and they can't all be authentic. The neo-socinianism that I favour rubs shoulders with liberation theology, existential theology, old style liberal theology, mystical theology, postmodern theology and many others. There is some overlap between us but let's not overestimate it. We make mutually exclusive claims. We could all be wrong, but we can't all be right.
We all claim, in our own way, to be pushing authenticity. But what is the reference point for authenticity? For me, it is sought historically, in the recovery of what it is that Jesus really taught, but that's what Liberation theologians claim too. As do postmodernists, existentialists and all the other varieties. How can this be?
It's because all theologies are about being authentic to reality, and we all believe, to some degree, that there are layers of reality that have become clarified post-biblically. The difference between us is the degree with which we think new discoveries about reality get to update our understanding of the gospel.
Evolution would be a case in point. All that talk about Adam and Eve was not wrong, we might say, but it was pre-scientific, and so we can recover an original message while expressing this via modern, scientific understanding. Liberation theology does something akin to this but with Marxist and neo-Marxist thought categories. I don't accept that Marxism describes reality in the same way that evolution does, but I recognise that the methodology of liberation theology does believe this, and so it is claiming to recover authentic Christianity.
Similarly, existential theology says that Christianity answers the questions thrown up by existence. Twentieth century philosophy distilled and clarified these questions to the extent that the biblical expression of this now needs expressing in existential categories, but the principle is the same. We all reckon we are getting to the heart of what Jesus and the early church really meant.
Now, I think that these two theological approaches have the thing out of balance. For my money, they are guilty of what I would call nowsplaining. They give way too much credence to contemporary narratives, allowing them to filter out everything in the gospel that doesn't fit into their modern worldview. I believe that Christianity has an authentic, distinctive narrative of its own. It's good to bring this into conversation with subsequent worldviews, whether philosophical, scientific or economic, but not as a junior partner. Modern knowledge may sharpen our understanding of the gospel, but the gospel informs, challenges and corrects modern knowledge in exchange.
But while there may be irreconcilable differences between the different Christianities on offer within Unitarianism, we can still all be in the ark building business. And it matters that these different options remain available.
In Acts 5, the apostles are being tried before the council, when a learned and respected Jewish teacher, Gamaliel, says this:
So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!
This should be our approach. For Unitarian Christians to offer one identikit version of Christianity would be a hell of a gamble. After all, what are the odds of that one version of the gospel being the right one? Our task is to seek out and preserve that which is 'of God'. Time will tell whose vision is more authentic. It won't be some fine, theological judgement. It will be plain to see because one ark will float while the others sink. To that end, we need arks. Lots of them.
Comments
Post a Comment