National Unitarian Fellowship

Affiliated to the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches

Current Trends
In
British Unitarianism

by
Arthur Long

Published by the
Ulster Unitarian Christian Association
BELFAST 1997

This booklet, whilst available in print, was an excellent guide for those coming new to the NUF and to Unitarians generally. It provides a clear background as to the diverse roots of our movement. Rev Arthur Long was considering editing and up-dating this earlier publication so that it might be re-printed. Sadly he died in December 2006 before he was able to complete the editing.

The UUCA and the NUF, having been already involved with this project, felt that Arthur would not have wanted us to reprint something which he was not 100% happy with but also felt the booklet was too valuable not to be readily available. Therefore it has been decided the following on-line publication, which acknowledges this work as a faithful reproduction of the 1997 booklet, should be published here.

This on-line publication is the work of the NUF in collaboration with the UUCA

Thanks go to the family of Rev Arthur Long for agreeing to this on-line publication and to Rev David Steers for his support and help.

******************************************************************

Foreword
The Ulster Unitarian Christian Association has a long and interesting history. Founded in 1875 it has often been a very productive society within the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland. For many years earlier in this century it operated a bookshop in the centre of Belfast, it has produced a great variety of publications and up to the 1950s had its own magazine, Challenge, under the editorship of the Rev Percival Godding. Always aiming to promote rational and thoughtful discussion of religious topics the Association unfortunately became dormant for a number of years after the 1960s before being revived in the 1990s. In the last couple of years the UUCA has published a number of works and instituted occasional special lectures by high profile speakers the first of these being the Rev Dr Arthur Long whose paper is published here.

Few people are as well qualified to tackle the topic of this paper as Arthur Long. A former Principal of tile Unitarian College, Manchester; with a wealth of pastoral experience acquired in a thirty year ministry in London and Bolton, Dr Long continues today in active retirement as the editor of The Unitarian Christian Herald and Honorary Lecturer in the Department of Religions and Theology at Manchester University.

His paper was delivered at well attended meetings held at the First Presbyterian (Non-Subscribing,) Church, Holywood and at Dublin Unitarian Church in March 1996. It is a very thorough and comprehensive study of the contemporary trends of British Unitarianism. Of course, not all the current developments and interests of Unitarianism in Britain today are shared by Non-Subscribers in Ireland, indeed some of the more esoteric manifestations within the churches in Britain in recent years would find no echo in the churches of the NSPCI which are traditionally more Christocentric and Bible based. However as Dr Long points out, there is a considerable overlap between both sets of churches especially in their commitment to the right of private judgement and the place of reason in religion.

For anyone interested in contemporary theological thought within British Unitarianism this book is essential reading. Unitarians produce little enough that contains any theological explanation for why they believe what they believe and Dr Long's paper which is both scholarly and informative and filled with his characteristic wit and good humour, is a very timely contribution in this field.

David Steers, Belfast
September 1997

CURRENT TRENDS IN BRITISH UNITARIANISM
Rev. Arthur Long, MA., Hon. D.Theol,

Lecture sponsored by the
Ulster Unitarian Christian Association

Delivered at Holywood, County Down, and Dublin

Many years ago it could have been in the early 1950s - a pocket cartoon appeared in a London newspaper. It depicted a robed cleric in a pulpit on what was presumably an ecumenical occasion, and the caption was: "Let us pray and those of you who are Unitarians, please do whatever you usually do!"

The cartoon was in some ways a rather pleasant surprise. When Unitarians are not being denounced, they are usually ignored. But the jest was an occasion also for some wry amusement. When Unitarians are tolerated they are indeed usually regarded as very way-out and eccentric - Christian perhaps, but maybe not, strictly speaking - probably religious in their own way, but very dubious about, if not actually rejecting, many of the practices and tenets taken for granted in mainstream Christianity!

I suppose one would have to admit that this is indeed characteristic of some brands of Unitarianism. But it is certainly not the complete picture.

The first thing that one needs to say about contemporary Unitarianism, therefore, is that it is extremely diverse. There are many different varieties. We all know the ancient gag: "Wherever two or three Unitarians are gathered together, there are at least three or four different opinions!" - something which, incidentally, I believe is also said of the Jews. Unitarianism has always been a confederation (sometimes a very uneasy confederation) of many different trends and beliefs, and this has never been more so than today.

There are two reasons for the extreme diversity within the Unitarian movement. The first is the complexity of our history. The second is the consequence of our philosophy of continuing revelation and the importance which we attach to an intellectual framework for sound religious faith.

Complex Historical Background

Let us take a look at our history first of all. British Unitarianism is made up of at least four, possibly five, quite separate strands.

The first - what we might perhaps call the mainstream strand - is that which stems from the English Presbyterians. That British Unitarianism is in many respects part of the Presbyterian tradition is something which needs to be stressed. It is a reminder for Unitarians (on both sides of the Irish Sea) of the importance of the close links between the Unitarian movement in Britain and the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland.

Stressing the importance of the tradition of the English Presbyterians also underlines the fact that the Unitarian movement in Britain goes right back to the Great Ejection of 1662 and the Toleration Act of 1689. We, no less than the other Free Church Denominations, are part of the original tradition of Puritan Dissent. Leaving aside the Quakers, who always set themselves apart from the mainstream, there were three groups among the original Dissenters: the Independents (later known as the Congregationalists), a few Baptists, and the Presbyterians. The Presbyterians, who were by far the largest group, always retained a certain nostalgia for the Church of England from which they had been unwillingly ejected. Many of them still preferred a liturgical form of worship. They were also in many respects the most intolerant and orthodox of the Dissenters. The Independents tended, on the whole, to be more tolerant and radical. But by one of those strange changes which history often brings, in the course of time, the position was completely reversed. During the 18th century, the Independents (with some notable exceptions) became more dogmatic and orthodox, while the Presbyterians, largely under the influence of the great Dissenting Academies, moved steadily away from Calvinism, firstly towards Arminianism and Arianism, and eventually to Unitarianism (or what was often called, somewhat misleadingly, Socinianism). We do need to remember, of course, that a few Independents also moved in that same direction. Some of the leading Radical Dissenters (such as Joseph Priestley, Caleb Fleming, and Nathaniel Lardner) were originally Independents.

So maybe we should distinguish a second basic strand, that of the Radical Independents - though it is perhaps better to label this as strand 1a rather than strand 2. But the Radical Independents did undoubtedly serve to reinforce within the infant Unitarian movement the tradition of Independence or Separatism in Church Polity. For despite their name, the English Presbyterians were never really Presbyterian in the strict sense of that term. This still remains one of the main differences between the NSPCI and the Unitarian movement in mainland Britain. While the NSPCI is very definitely Presbyterian in organisation, Unitarianism in Britain (as also in the United States) is firmly committed to the principle of full congregational autonomy. (I remember once telling a Methodist audience that there was a curious link between British Unitarianism and the Methodists. The Unitarians, I said, call themselves Presbyterians, but they're not. The Methodists don't call themselves Presbyterians, but in some respects they are!)

The second main strand is that which goes back to Anglicanism. In a sense, this is part of the Presbyterian tradition. But it was firmly reinforced by some accessions during the late 18th century, most notably in the person of that admirable character, Theophilus Lindsey, the Vicar of Catterick in Yorkshire. In 1773, Lindsey resigned his living and left the Established Church, and in the following year he opened the first avowedly Unitarian Chapel in England. This was at Essex Street in London - on the site of what is now the headquarters of British Unitarianism. For the worship in his chapel, Lindsey used a revised version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. In the 19th century, the Unitarian tradition was also influenced to some extent by its informal links with the Anglican Broad Church movement.

The third strand a very important one, all too often overlooked - was the group known as the General Baptists. Quite a number of the present Unitarian Churches in Britain especially in the south - were originally General Baptist. Richard Wright, the great 19th century Unitarian missionary, who did so much to spread the Unitarian gospel, was a Baptist, and the General Baptist Assembly is still part of our organisation. It always needs to be remembered that some of the General Baptists had become Unitarian in theology even before the English Presbyterians. The General Baptists also helped to strengthen within Unitarianism the tradition of congregational autonomy.

The fourth strand - which again, must never be overlooked - is that which stems from the Methodist Unitarians, who emerged mainly in North East Lancashire in the early 19th century. Similar to them were the Christian Brethren from the Black Country. 'These groups, like the General Baptists, brought to a movement dominated by the English Presbyterians, most of whom had become prosperous middle class merchants and manufacturers, a welcome element of radical working class enthusiasm.

These four strands, all of which have played an important part in the history of British Unitarianism, constitute the first source of the extreme diversity within our movement. The second source or cause stems, as I have already suggested, from our philosophy of revelation and the stress which we place on the necessity of an intellectual framework for any sound religious faith.

Open Revelation and Reliance on Reason

A few years back, I reviewed for The Inquirer some of the excellent papers published by the Centre for the Study of Theology at the University of Essex. One of them, which I found extremely relevant and stimulating (despite its rather cumbersome title - Price, Cost, Excellence and Worth: Can the Idea of a University Survive the Force of the Market?) was by Dr David Jenkins, still at that time Bishop of Durham. He has since retired, and he recently gave some excellent Ferguson Lectures at Manchester University, analysing the current concept of 'Market Economics' - which he sees as one of the gravest contemporary threats to radical religious thinking, and indeed to the whole fabric of our society. In his Essex pamphlet, among other things, he stresses the importance of good thinking in theology, and he reminds us that "someone (probably Bertrand Russell) once said that "most Englishmen would rather die than think — and many of them do."

Like Dr Jenkins, we too insist on the importance of good thinking — and this has always seemed to me to be an essential part of the Unitarian tradition. Bernard Shaw, in his somewhat neglected little play The Village Wooing, says that we all have a basic duty to think about everything — and, he adds, we must try to think about everything as it really is, and not as it is just talked about. Unitarians believe that this applies just as much to religion as to anything else. After all, the English Presbyterians, from whom we are mostly descended, were proud to call themselves, in the late 18th century, the Rational Dissenters.

The late James Luther Adams, the leading Unitarian academic of the 20th century, once said that "an unexamined faith is not worth having" - an echo of the words of Socrates: "An unexamined life is not worth living." According to Adams, "a faith worth having is a faith worth discussing, testing - something intelligible and verifiable."

This certainly lies right at the heart of the Unitarian tradition, and it is something which stems from our theory of the general nature of what is usually called Revelation. We insist on the necessity of a progressive, evolutionary view. Like John Robinson and the Pilgrim Fathers of 1620, we believe that "the Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from his word." Here again, we are perhaps indebted to the Independents as well as the Presbyterians. Most of the 'Covenants' of the Early Independents and Separatists spoke of walking in the "the ways of God - known and to be made known." As our leading theologian and philosopher James Martineau argues in his magnum opus The Seat of Authority in Religion, it can be demonstrated that the idea of an infallible external revelation, whether in Church or Scripture, is a logical impossibility. Whether we like it or not, we are all obliged, in the end, to make a subjective individual judgment, based on reason and conscience. If we accept Scripture or the Church as our authority, it is only because we judge Scripture or the Church to be authoritative. There is no such thing as a self-authenticating revelation. 'This is part of our precious legacy from the Socinian concept of recta ratio or 'right reason'. In former times, Unitarians always took their stand on Scripture as the supreme and ultimate authority. Here is another link with the traditions of the NSPCI, But as we all now recognise, our authority is not just Scripture pure and simple. It is Scripture interpreted and understood on the basis of reason. Reason and conscience remain the real and only seat of authority in religion.

There are, I suggest, two important consequences of this principle. It means, in the first place that we have to recognise that ultimate absolute certainty is always an impossibility. I think it was that admirable actor and playwright, Peter Ustinov, who once said that those who pose the real threat in modern society are not the doubters or the liberals, but the Fundamentalists - those who lay claim to absolute certainty.

The second consequence of our philosophy of revelation is the inevitability of a wide diversity of belief, something demanding mutual tolerance and a willingness to include and indeed to welcome — the presence of different strands, This is, in many ways, the most significant consequence of our approach to revelation and the emphasis which we place on the inner authority of conscience and reason - the principle of recta ratio. We welcome the fact that our movement reflects a wide variety of different opinions, which (ideally at any rate) are held on a basis of mutual tolerance and agreement to differ. One of the foremost characterics of Unitarianism as a movement, therefore, is a considerable measure of diversity - a diversity sustained by an undergirding unity.

Categorising our Diversity

Is it possible to make a list of the various different strands or trends within contemporary Unitarianism? To some extent, I think it is. Some thirty years ago now, as a member of what was then known as the General Assembly Faith and Action Commission, I myself was asked to compile a catalogue of the different varieties of Unitarianism at that time, and the list which I came up with (which was accepted by the Commission) was published as an appendix to one of its reports, under the title of Types of Contemporary Unitarianism. It contained six different categories, ranging from Liberal Christian Unitarianism, through non-Christocentric Theism and Universalism (or All-Faiths Unitarianism), to Non-Theistic Humanism. In many ways, I think that this categorisation still holds good, and I will return to my list in a moment. For the present, I would like to stress that we should never regard the very real divergences within our household of faith as something which we have to apologise for, or which we should try to conceal. It is something we should proclaim with pride. It does, in a sense, give us a contemporary link with the Church of England, which also prides itself on being a Broad Church embracing several different wings or trends. Maybe we Unitarians are not always as tolerant as we ought to be, or as we claim to be - especially when it comes to dealing with differences within our own ranks. But on the whole, I think we can justly claim that a mutual respect for religious divergence is indeed one of the main characteristics of our movement. As Dr Philip Hewett points out in an excellent recent booklet called Understanding Unitarians, this is what we mean when we say that Unitarianism is essentially a liberal movement:-

"Being liberal in the context in which Unitarians use the term demands an honest attempt to respect each human personality and its right to develop according to its own unique pattern. This entails an attempt to understand where others take their stand and to enter into dialogue with them, on the assumption that each can he enriched by this. It does not preclude taking a firm stand of one's own, but it does preclude the arrogance that assumes that one's own position is necessarily the only right one."

Dr Hewett, a leading British Unitarian, who, for most of his time as a minister has served our Churches in Canada, goes on to suggest that this attitude is perhaps best described as liberality rather than liberalism — and also (and I think that this is a very useful point) that it is better to speak of our catholicity rather than our catholicism. He then demonstrates, making ingenious use of some rather complicated diagrams, how this liberality or catholicity eventually results in seven different but overlapping types of Unitarianism. His titles are different from those in my own original list, but I was interested to note that they cover much the same ground.

So perhaps it is still appropriate for us to take a closer look at the list which I drew up for the Faith and Action Commission in the 1960s - which may not, perhaps, be all that out of date.

Number 1 was what I called Liberal Protestant Christianity - which I defined as follows: 'Essential Christianity' purged of its extreme supernatural elements - Jesus in no sense God, but still a source of continuing insight and inspiration, and to that extent, one who can appropriately be called 'Lord and Master' - Strong emotional attachment to the Christian tradition and a belief in its supreme significance and uniqueness - though with the understanding always that 'the Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from his word.'

I may be sticking my neck out, but I suspect that this is still the most common brand of contemporary British Unitarianism. At heart most of us are still primarily Liberal Christians. Liberal or Free Christianity is what we profess - which means that most of us are in many respects not all that different from Non-Subscribers. Maybe British Unitarians are, in some ways, a little more radical - particularly in their Christology. I remember that when my list first appeared, some critics queried my suggestion that, for Christian Unitarians, Jesus was in no sense God. But I would stand by this claim. Christian Unitarians in Britain are perhaps more Unitarian (in the doctrinal sense) than some members of the NSPCI. That is to say that they are still anti-Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian (and I shall return to this later). It is just possible that for a few British Unitarians (probably very few indeed) Jesus is still, in some sense, 'God.' But for most of us, while Jesus may be the supreme revealer of God, or even the image of God, he is not, in himself, God. Of course, even respectable mainstream theologians do occasionally point out that to call Jesus 'God' without qualification is in any case heresy!

Some Unitarians are inclined to call the Christian brand of Unitarianism 'Christocentric'. But I once heard the Rev. Tony Cross (who is quite rightly regarded as very definitely a Christian Unitarian) make an amusing comment on the term Christocentric. He strongly denied that he was Christocentric. He insisted that (like Jesus) he himself was first and foremost 'Theocentric' - not Christocentric at all. He criticised the popular Evangelical slogan "Thank God for Jesus" and suggested that what we ought to say was "Thank Jesus for God thank Jesus for making God more real and relevant!"

Number 2 on my original list was what I called Existential Unitarianism, which I defined as follows: The 'myth' approach to Christianity. Belief in the abiding symbolic significance of much traditional Christian dogma, particularly that relating to Jesus, considered against the background of humanity's peculiar situation in a world of mystery, suffering and death. This is now less common amongst us. But I often have the feeling that a rediscovery of this view-point could become a useful growth point. Not only would it make Unitarianism more acceptable to mainstream Liberal Christians. It would also remedy what has always been one of our most obvious weaknesses, namely a very inadequate awareness of the tragic side of life, and a tendency to ignore the power of sin and evil.

Number 3 was Non-Christocentric Theism: A religious philosophy firmly based on a definite belief in God, regarded as a universal Spirit, and with less emphasis than in (1) on the centrality of Jesus.

This certainly cannot he overlooked and it still remains a very important category. There are many Unitarians who believe very definitely in God, but who are without emotional attachment either to Jesus or the Christian tradition. Some have seen this category as a reflection of an orientation to the Jewish rather than the Christian tradition. Others have suggested that it is a survival of the Stoic philosophy of the Graeco-Roman world - a suggestion which by no means detracts from the significance or value of this brand of Unitarianism, for Stoicism was undoubtedly one of the noblest creeds of the ancient world.

Number 4 was what I called Universalism or the All - Faiths Approach:- Belief in the profound significance of all religious dispensations and not just the Judaeo-Christian tradition - possibly with some sort of federation of the great World Faiths as the ultimate goal. This is undoubtedly a very popular brand of Unitarianism, often embraced with great enthusiasm, and probably more common among American Unitarians than it is in Britain. But in a sense, of course, it merely reflects a characteristic facet of the whole Unitarian ethos, especially in the modern era - something which we should all be only too happy to proclaim. After all, Unitarians of whatever brand are clearly not involved in the dilemma which is the almost inevitable corollary of the dogma of a unique and literal Incarnation of the one True God in the person of Jesus, a belief which obliges even many otherwise Liberal Christians to affirm that, in the last analysis, Christianity remains the only 'True Faith'. But, on the other hand, perhaps Unitarians need to be reminded of the dangers inherent in a bland assumption that, at heart, all religions are really saying the same thing.

It is always good to be reminded of the great Dr Albert Schweitzer's famous distinction between faiths and philosophies that are 'world and life- affirming' and those that are 'world and life-denying'. There is much sound sense in Archbishop William Temple's revolutionary claim that Christianity is, in many respects, the most materialistic of all the religions.

When speaking of what is commonly called the Universalist brand of Unitarianism, I always like to point out that the term 'Universalism' can be misleading, and that a better name for the category is 'The All-Faiths Approach'. Strictly speaking, Universalism, as the theological dictionaries point out, is not the belief that God speaks through all the Great Faiths. In strict theological terms, Universalism was originally an emphatically Christian concept, one which maintains the view that Christ died for all men and women, and not just for the Elect. This type of belief, sometimes called, in post-Reformation terms, Arminianism, and originally very characteristic of the Methodists, was also the central tenet of the important American denomination known specifically as the Univeralists, a denomination which, in 1961, joined up with the Unitarians. This explains why the American Unitarians now call themselves not just Unitarians, but Unitarian-Universalists. It also underlines the fact that Universalism, in the strict theological sense, can certainly move on very easily to the belief that the graciousness of God is revealed not only in Christianity, but in all the Great Faiths. But as British Unitarian visitors have sometimes discovered, those American Unitarian Churches which were originally Universalist, are often more akin to British Christian Unitarianism than those which have always been Unitarian.

Number 5 on my list was Humanism — which perhaps ought now to he called Non-Theistic Humanism. I originally defined it as follows: A type of religious agnosticism, reflecting doubts about the traditional idea of a personal God - which may or may not amount to a specific repudiation of Theism. We certainly need to acknowledge that this has always been, in modern times, an important sector in the Unitarian spectrum, and that it has recently become much more common than it once was. It is probably one of the aspects of contemporary Unitarianism which most disturbs the traditionalists. But what one needs to remember, of course, is that Unitarian Humanism is Religious Humanism, and that it is quite different, therefore, from Secular Humanism. Unitarian humanists may not believe in God (at least, not in the traditional sense). But they are nevertheless genuinely religious, believing sincerely in the importance of public worship, interpreted primarily as an acknowledgment of human values and a celebration of life.

As I have already suggested, this is much more common in American Unitarianism than it is in Britain. But British Unitarianism certainly does now include some enthusiastic Humanists, both lay and ministerial, some of whom argue that this is where the future of our movement really lies. But I suspect that there are only a very few of the Congregations in Britain who regard themselves as avowedly Humanist. I also find that most of my Unitarian Humanist friends are very tolerant of Theism - and even of Christian Unitarianism. However, I still believe that, from the intellectual point of view, the Theist-Humanist divide is very important, and that it is something which we should not attempt to conceal, I would like to say a little more on the subject later on.

We have now covered five of the six categories in my original list and for the moment I am passing over number six. I called it 'Unitarian Pragmatism' - and there is probably still much of that around. What I had in mind was the attitude which sets little store by theology or metaphysics, and relies on feeling or intuition, picking up beliefs from a variety of different sources. This is certainly the characteristic attitude of many believers today - both Unitarian and otherwise. But I doubt whether it needs to be thought of as a specific category or type of contemporary British Unitarianism. However, maybe we do now need to add somewhat to the list of five types of Unitarianism which we have considered so far. Indeed, when in an Inquirer Supplement of some ten to fifteen years ago, the original six categories were re-published by the GA Theology Panel (a body which, significantly perhaps, no longer exists), two additional titles were added. They were Mysticism (No.7) - and Social Commitment (No.8).

I was very dubious about this at the time - and I still am. The mystical approach could surely apply to any trend or category within Unitarianism — or indeed any other tradition. As for Social Commitment, it is difficult to see how something which is essentially a principle, capable of being found within any religious tradition, can be regarded as a specific type of Unitarian religious belief. On the other hand, I have come to the conclusion that for many British Unitarians, Unitarianism does seem to mean, first and foremost, Radical Social Commitment.

So I am now going to suggest (very tentatively) that we need to add two further categories or trends to my original list of five (omitting, for the moment, Pragmatism). This gives us seven types in all. I am calling No.6 - Unitarianism as Social and Religious Protest — and No.7 I would label New Age Unitarianism.

I think I would define Number 6 - Unitarianism as Social and Religious Protest - somewhat as follows: A primary concern for Human Rights, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech - and especially nowadays a passionate commitment to racial equality, feminist issues, gay rights and lesbian concerns, and the rights of the disabled and disadvantaged.

We can hardly fail to notice that this above all is what Unitarianism means for some of its most enthusiastic contemporary adherents, particularly in the United States, and increasingly perhaps in Britain also - even to some extent, I imagine, in Ireland. It could no doubt be argued that this in itself does not really constitute a distinct type or category of Unitarianism. But it is certainly a very prominent current trend - and one which can, in fact, be found among Unitarians of any type or category, whether Christian, Humanist, or what have you. I would further suggest that, as I see it, this is a very important and indeed a legitimate trend - legitimate because it reflects a basic and continuing facet of the Unitarian ethos, something which stems especially from the much-undervalued tradition of Rational Dissent. In the past, Unitarians were almost always known for (and in trouble because of) their support for radical social causes. At the end of the 18th century, Unitarians such as Joseph Priestley, Richard Price - and even Theophilus Lindsey (despite his aristocratic background and connections) were supporters of the French and American Revolutions. Unitarians were always in the forefront of the struggle for full liberty and equal civil rights for all Dissenters - and later for Roman Catholics as well. The traditional toast at all Unitarian social functions (still regularly observed in Great Britain) has always been "To Civil & Religious Liberty the World Over!" No doubt some Unitarians would now want to include not only human rights, but animal rights as well.

I think that it is important for us to stress this aspect of the Unitarian tradition whenever we are speaking of current trends. But speaking personally, I would also like to add a few caveats and reservations. In particular, I would suggest that we need to remember that we do seem to suffer, in contemporary society generally, from an undue and aggressive concentration on rights, at the expense of any accompanying recognition of the importance of responsibilities. It has also always seemed to me to be rather unfortunate that those who concentrate on rights are all too often aggressively intolerant. This has sometimes been unpleasantly apparent at the Annual Meetings of our General Assembly.

It is important, too, for us to note, as I have already suggested, that a concern for human and animal rights and a commitment to social protest are just as likely to be encountered in other religious denominations as they are in Unitarianism. It is by no means something which we can claim as our exclusive prerogative.

As for what I have called New-Age Unitarianism, here again, we cannot but acknowledge that contemporary Unitarianism has certainly nurtured some very vocal advocates of beliefs and practices reflecting what has become generally known as New-Age thinking. So this too does need to be recognised as an additional current trend. It becomes, therefore, the seventh and final category on my revised list.

This is, perhaps, difficult to define briefly. But I would suggest that there are three aspects to the trend. They are, firstly, the Unitarian version of what, in a wider context, is known as Neo-Paganism; secondly, the attitude characterised by an urgent and primary concern for what are usually known as 'Green Issues' (i.e. the threat to the environment and the life of our planet resulting from increasing pollution and rampant industrial development); and thirdly, some of the more radical aspects of Feminist Theology.

There is much that one could say on these matters, but I will confine myself to just a few comments, as there are still some wider issues on which I would like to speak before I conclude.

New-Age Unitarianism

I think that I would like to link Neo-Paganism with what I have called the more radical aspects of Feminist Theology (which does sometimes merge very readily into Neo-Paganism), and to set both of them aside for the moment. This leaves us with what can conveniently be called 'Green Issues.'

Now it seems to me that an increasingly urgent concern for the problems of the Environment - what Unitarians (and others of course) have called Cherishing the Living Earth is another entirely legitimate development. Many of us, I am sure, would see it as a natural and commendable extension of our traditional social concern. Some aspects of contemporary environmental protest such as the angry and often very violent campaigns against the construction of motorways and by-passes are undoubtedly highly controversial and often very disturbing for the supporters of 'law and order.' But while one should no doubt be fully aware of the dangers of a general descent into anarchy, these are matters which deserve very careful thought. I was much impressed by a recent newspaper article on the subject by the distinguished Roman Catholic journalist, Clifford Longley, an article which, in itself was a timely reminder that Unitarians can hardly claim to be the only body concerned with environmental issues. To the surprise, no doubt, of some his readers, Longley argued strongly in favour of the Newbury by-pass protesters. St Francis of Assisi, he said, would certainly have understood their conviction that a tree is a far more wonderful thing than a motor-car. "Only those who have never been guilty of car-worship," he said, "are entitled to point a finger at tree-worship."

He went on to quote from an article in The Tablet (a Roman Catholic newspaper) which had referred to the fact that while the Dyfed Wildlife trust had received thousands of offers of help from individuals and voluntary organisations in response to its call for a massive clean-up operation after the recent gigantic oil-spill off the South Wales coast, not one single offer had come from a Christian body. "The tactics of the Newbury protesters," Longley concluded, "are bizarre, inconvenient and unlawful. But they display an articulate reverence for Creation - and hidden within that is an inarticulate reverence for the Creator." There is surely much food for thought here for Unitarians, many of whom always like to think of themselves as being in the vanguard of radical Christianity.

I have no doubt that Longley's article would have commended itself especially to those who call themselves Neo-Pagans. But as I have already indicated, I would want to make a distinction between Neo-Paganism as commonly understood, and what I regard as a legitimate concern for Green Issues. While I would always hesitate to set limits to the beliefs which Unitarians may embrace I do have reservations about some aspects of the Neo-Pagan movement — including those very radical types of Feminist Theology which often spring, so it seems to me, from essentially Neo-Pagan foundations. I take it for granted that we all now agree that many aspects of Feminist Theology are highly desirable, and that Unitarians especially have a duty to promote feminist values, rooting out sexist language, sponsoring verbal degenderisation, and urging all of us to remember that motherhood can be just as valuable a symbol for God as fatherhood. But I get a little worried when some of our sisters suggest that we must never call God 'Our Father', and that we must think solely in female terms, relying on our hearts rather than our heads, and recognising that 'goddesses' are always preferable to 'gods'. I naturally hope that Unitarians will always do their best to steer clear of phobias in these matters, and to acknowledge that we have a duty, where necessary, to explore new pathways. I also suggest that we should discourage the knee - jerk reaction which completely misunderstands Neo-Paganism, and sees it as an evil demonic force, posing a serious threat to traditional Christian values. But Unitarians especially also have a duty to underline the dangers inherent in beliefs which sometimes seem to verge on irrational mumbo- jumbo. Intuition and imagination are tremendously important, but Unitarians must always remain faithful to the traditions of the Enlightenment. Any concentration on the irrational at the expense of the rational is always highly dangerous. New Age concerns within Unitarianism do, unfortunately, sometimes furnish examples of the woolly superficial thinking which so often plagues us. Perhaps we also need to remind the Neo-Pagans amongst us that all religious language is of necessity poetic and symbolic, and that for some of us, it is not immediately obvious that Pagan mythology is inherently superior to Christian Mythology. Could this perhaps suggest (as I have already hinted) that one of the most neglected forms of current Unitarianism is what I have called Existential Unitarianism?

Contemporary Unitarianism - Some Personal Reflections

I would like to conclude with some extended personal reflections on three topics which I consider to be especially important for current Unitarian thinking. They are (1) The Doctrine of the Trinity; (2) Christology; and (3) The Theist-Humanist Debate.

1. The Doctrine Of the Trinity

Unitarianism is still commonly defined, in theological dictionaries and by those outside the movement, as a repudiation of Trinitarianism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for example, defines Unitarianism as "a type of Christian thought and observance which rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ in favour of the unipersonality of God. (It is interesting to note that the Dictionary appears to take it for granted that Unitarianism is a form of Christianity). But it is often said, quite rightly, that this type of definition gives a very inadequate and probably misleading impression of contemporary Unitarianism. Most of us probably remember James Martineau's complaints about the 'sectarian' implications of the term 'Unitarian'. In an oft-quoted aphorism, he insisted that while it was right for individuals to call themselves Unitarians, for our movement as a whole to call itself Unitarian was a betrayal of our ethos - a claim which I imagine, probably evokes considerable sympathy within the NSPCI. From quite a different angle, it can also be argued, of course, that if one is going to interpret Unitarianism primarily in Humanist or non-Christian terms, then the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly irrelevant.

But I myself still think that the question of the Trinity is basic and important - especially because, in my experience, most British Unitarians, even those who still regard themselves as Christians, do, as it happens, either reject the doctrine, or at the very least, feel uneasy about it.

I think that there are three reasons why we should continue to regard this as a matter of importance.

Firstly, from a historical point of view, it can hardly be denied that Unitarianism began, within Christianity, as anti-Trinitarianism. Where the emphasis was on Non-Subscription (as in Ireland, and initially in Britain also) the point at issue was in fact usually the Trinity. The doctrine was repudiated as unscriptural and irrational, something which corrupted and obscured the simple message of the original Christian Gospel. This was the common line taken consistently within the entire Unitarian tradition — by Servetus, Faustus Socinus and Francis David in mainland Europe, and by John Biddle, Stephen Nye, Priestley and Lindsey in Britain.

In the second place, there was, and still is, a sense in which the rejection, or at least the questioning of the Trinity determines our conception of God, our approach to religious knowledge, and our distinctive attitude to Jesus.

Thirdly and finally, one of the most obvious reasons why it is still to our advantage to concentrate on the Trinity is the continuing vulnerability of the doctrine. Despite the supreme emphasis which mainstream Christianity still places upon the dogma (and our traditional repudiation of it is, after all, the most common reason for our exclusion from ecumenical bodies), much mainstream discussion of the doctrine has recently become increasingly negative and even apologetic. It is almost as if orthodox Christians are at last beginning to realise that the Trinity is in some respects highly dubious.

A good instance of this is the 1987 Report of the Church of England Doctrine Commission called We Believe in God which actually admits that most Christians in the West find it very difficult to define, let alone to defend the Trinity! The report even concedes (as Unitarians, of course, have always insisted) that St Paul's familiar 'Grace' (II Cor. 13.14) is not, in fact, Trinitarian. The comment concludes as follows: "Many factors have contributed to this quiet anti-Trinitarian tendency in Western Christianity and cumulatively they are certainly powerful ... Some would argue that the experience of dialogue with other faiths makes abandonment of traditional trinitarianism an even more compelling possibility."

Some contemporary Unitarians would no doubt be inclined to comment that we ourselves have seen very little evidence of a "quiet anti-Trinitarian tendency in Western Christianity." But if there has indeed been such a tendency and it still persists, then we Unitarians surely have a duty to encourage it, and I would suggest that there is no need for us now to be apologetic about our traditional anti-trinitarian stance. It is certainly worth noting that in his book God as Spirit, the late Geoffrey Lampe, a distinguished Cambridge theologian, definitely emerges as a critic of the Trinity. He argues that there are far better foundations for the essential insights of Christianity than those furnished by affirmations of Trinitarian dogma.

I would claim, therefore, that contemporary Unitarians, like their forebears, need have no qualms about questioning the Trinity. This is hardly the place for me to attempt a full-blown Unitarian critique of the doctrine. I will merely stress what I see as a some relevant points.

The Trinity Criticised

In the first place, we can still concentrate on the utter irrationality and impossibility of the doctrine. Does anyone really understand what it actually affirms — this ridiculous notion of three in one and one in three, three persons and one substance? There is a delightful anecdote which features Richard Porson, the 18th century classical scholar. When he was out walking one day with a clerical friend, they were passed by three men in a cart. His friend suggested that three men in one cart provided a perfect illustration of the Trinity. "Not at all," said Porson, "You must show me rather, one man in three carts - if you can!" The so-called Athanasian Creed is rarely used nowadays. But it is still well-worth reading. After proclaiming that those who do not "keep the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled shall without doubt perish everlastingly," this incredible document continues as follows: "And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity . . . neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one . . . Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. ..."

'Incomprehensible' would indeed seem to he the right word! But after innumerable verses of similar nonsense, the Creed concludes with an anathema, affirming that those who do not accept the Catholic Faith cannot be saved. The Expository Times once quoted an amusing story (no doubt apocryphal) about James Martineau. It seems that the learning and saintliness of this doyen of 19th century Unitarianism always made a great impression on others — even his theological opponents. On one occasion when he had addressed a gathering of distinguished divines, someone was heard to remark: 'What an amazing fellow Martineau is! — Such erudition, such spirituality! Isn't it a pity that he shall without doubt perish everlastingly?"

In his book on the Trinity, Leonard Hodgson, sometime Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says that the doctrine of the Trinity is a sacred mystery which can never be reduced to a rational statement of belief. Any attempt to make it such, he suggests, is bound to result in the scandal of the Athanasian Creed - something which dogmatically proclaims a lot of impossible nonsense, and then says "Believe this or be damned!" Unitarian critics would be inclined to comment: "Precisely!" But one cannot help wondering why Hodgson then goes on to stress the necessity and indispensibility of the doctrine.

It is always very useful for Unitarians to remind themselves (and, no doubt, mainstream Christians as well) that the Trinity was originally designed to defend and uphold the insights of Jewish Monotheism! But Unitarians have been right to argue - like the Jews and Moslems - that, in actual fact, the Trinity clearly weakens and undermines the concept of monotheism. However, perhaps it is even more important for us to point out that the doctrine of the Trinity does not merely affirm that there is a metaphysical appropriateness in thinking of God as Three in One rather than just One. The Trinitarian dogma says something much more far - reaching and much more dubious. It affirms that, at one particular point in time, the Son, one Person within the Trinity, himself fully and completely God, existing from all eternity, took flesh and became human in the person of one historical human individual, Jesus of Nazareth.

That surely is a very different matter. This is the element which is really hard to swallow. In the first place, it seems to make complete nonsense of the idea of the full humanity of Jesus, which even mainstream Christianity is obliged to affirm. In the second place, is it not legitimate to ask, with Keith Ward, the present Regius Professor at Oxford, how the Eternal God could ever be fully and completely revealed in one single historic human individual? Speaking recently in my hearing, Professor Ward, described the traditional Christian claim as "myopic arrogance"! This really brings us on to the question of Christology, to which I shall return in a moment. But if we are asked (as we certainly will be) how we propose to 'explain' Jesus and justify the paramount role which he plays in Christian mythology, then the answer surely lies in the much-neglected doctrine of the Holy Spirit - as the late Geoffrey Lampe suggested.

No doubt we ought to be ready to concede that there might be something to be said for some of the 'heretical' interpretations of the Trinity - such as Sabellianism, for example. Maybe we ought to be ready to concede that Christians who find the doctrine of Trinity helpful and intelligible are entitled to believe it if they want to — provided always that they do not insist on imposing it on others. (It is always pleasant to recall that this is precisely what the original Polish Socinians say in that classic statement of their faith - the Racovian Cathechism). But I am sure that there is still much to be said for simply cutting the Gordian Knot and rejecting the Trinity. Let us continue to affirm unequivocally the unity of God, taking our stand firmly on the side of the Jews and Moslems. But, as Christian monotheists, let us also continue to put Jesus at the centre of our faith, seeing him as the supreme example of the way in which God, the Eternal Spirit of love and power, operates through human lives, revealing himself above all in the great Prophet-Souls of all ages.

2. Unitarian Christology

As I have just suggested, next to the Trinity, another basic issue which we need to address is the question of Christology. We do need to determine and proclaim our attitude to Jesus - though here again, we presumably also need to acknowledge that there will always be some Unitarians who do not find Jesus a particularly significant figure, and perhaps prefer some other guru. But speaking for myself, I have always felt that Unitarians have a particular obligation to maintain and argue the case for the continuing viability of the Liberal Protestant concept of the historical Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth - an astonishing religious genius of profound and amazing insight. Earlier this century, largely under the influence of Albert Schweitzer (paradoxically enough, since Schweitzer himself always remained a very convinced Liberal Christian with a very positive attitude to Jesus) the old Liberal notion of 'the Historical Jesus' as an alternative to 'the Theological Christ', was very much under a cloud. But now, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and many others besides Unitarians are willing to agree that the old contrast is indeed a valid one. We are still fully entitled, therefore, to stress the supreme significance of the historical Jesus — and we are certainly justified in continuing to draw attention to the impossibilities enshrined within the dogmas of traditional Christology. As recent arguments in mainstream circles have demonstrated, there is still much mileage to be gained from subjecting such questions as Virgin Birth, literal Resurrection, and a Second Coming, to a searching analysis. Perhaps we need above all (as the late Professor Richard Hanson argued) to repudiate the totally untenable notion of the Dual Nature of Christ, Perfect God and Perfect Man - though having said that, it often seems to me to that we do have much to gain by stressing the second half of that particular dogma. It is always useful to be able to remind Christians - especially those who insist on calling Jesus God — that whatever else they want to believe about Jesus, it is also incumbent upon them to believe that he was also, in every respect, fully and completely human, and not just a god come down to earth in human form.

But once again, having said all this, I find myself arriving at a somewhat paradoxical conclusion. It has always seemed to me that contemporary Unitarianism — certainly contemporary Christian Unitarianism ought to be more ready to acknowledge than has hitherto been the case that a really vital faith demands a Jesus who is much more than simply a historical figure who speaks to us from the past. In other words, it should he possible for Unitarians no less than others, to acknowledge the importance of Jesus as a cult-figure.

Philip Hewett has some very timely words on this matter in his new booklet:

"Although there are obvious dangers in making a cult-figure of any individual, it remains true that human beings seem to have a constitutional need for hero worship. Personalities gain and maintain a hold upon human imagination and allegiance, far beyond that of abstract principles, and this is even more strongly so when such figures are regarded as the embodiment of principles which we can admire and seek to embody in our own lives… Unitarians no less than others in the culture they have inherited and by which they have been largely moulded, have had the figure of Jesus set before them as an example and inspiration. Had they been born elsewhere, it might have been Mohammed or the Buddha. But why cut off one's roots and try to put down new ones, or even worse, try to live without any roots at all?"

The final words in particular are certainly something which contemporary Unitarians need to take to heart. It could mean that we might even come to find, with John Hick, some significance as metaphor or 'myth' — in the idea of Incarnation. But of course, it always has to be, in a sense, Incarnation universalised. This truth had already been glimpsed by Martineau, who once affirmed that "the Incarnation is true not only of Christ individually, but of man universally and God everlastingly".

Praying to Jesus

Could this mean that some of us might even be ready to offer prayer and worship to Jesus? The original Polish Socinians (as the Racovian Catechism makes clear) and a few of the other early anti-Trinitarians, still felt it legitimate to offer adoration to Christ. But modern Unitarianism, following the lead established by Francis David in Transylvania, and Theophilus Lindsey in Britain, has usually insisted that prayer can only be legitimately addressed to God. This, after all, has been the reason why, until at least very recent times, Unitarians have only felt able to sing truncated or subtly altered versions of some orthodox Christian hymns. But in a very interesting chapter of his Endeavours After the Christian Life, Martineau suggests, very convincingly, that there is really no reason at all why even Unitarians should not worship Jesus as the image of God - or at least an image of God. An image, when all is said and done, is by definition, distinct from that which it represents.

I was very surprised to find a highly intriguing and unexpected confirmation of this point of view in Bernard Shaw's little-known book Everybody's Political What's What - a slightly peculiar product of his extreme old age. In it, Shaw introduces us to a story of a Protestant schoolboy in Northern Ireland who told his school-teacher that he had never been able to pray to Jesus, but that having seen a performance of Shaw's famous play, he felt that he wanted to pray to St Joan. Fortunately for the boy, says Shaw, his teacher was a broad-minded liberal - rather than a narrow sectarian, who would certainly have given him a thrashing for flirting with Popery. He told the boy that there was no reason at all why he shouldn't pray to St Joan if he found it helpful. Shaw warmly commends the teacher and he adds: "It is the pray-er and not the prayee who matters!" — an aphorism which, I suggest, is well-worth reflecting upon.

3. The Debate About God and the Challenge of Humanism.

This too is surely a matter of particular importance for contemporary Unitarianism. In our community, we have, after all, long been familiar with arguments between Theists and Humanists. What is more, as I have already observed, we cannot but acknowledge that, at the present time, many Unitarians (especially American Unitarians) no longer believe in God. The term Humanism can admittedly be a source of some confusion. Within Unitarianism, it has usually come to mean Non-Theistic Humanism. But in a mainstream context, Christian Humanism, or Renaissance Humanism as it is often called, is in no sense averse to the idea of God. The great Christian Humanists of the 16th century — Erasmus, Thomas More, and Zwingli — certainly believed in God. But there could perhaps be some significance in the fact that Renaissance Humanism was itself one of the sources of Unitarianism. Many of the great figures in the early history of our tradition — Servetus, Juan de Valdez, Ochino, the Socini, Castellio — were themselves Humanists. Can it be legitimately claimed therefore that Non-Theistic Humanism is perhaps a natural and inevitable consequence of Unitarianism? Has the time come for us to repudiate belief in God?

It is important to note, of course, that this is not something which concerns Unitarians alone. Within Christianity as a whole, ever since the age of the Enlightenment, there have clearly been persistent doubts about the idea of God. During the last 30 to 40 years in particular there has certainly been a very vigorous debate on the subject among theologians and philosophers. One has only to think of such matters as the challenge of Linguistic Philosophy and Atheistic Existentialism, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of 'man's coming of age' and his suggestion that we need to live "as if God were not there", John Robinson's Honest to God and 'the Honest to God Debate', Paul Tillich's idea of God as 'the Ground of Being' rather than 'a Being', the 'Death of God' controversy in the United States, and the advocacy in some quarters of Christian Agnosticism — or even Christian Atheism. (Modern Christian Radicals are fond of pointing out that in the earliest days, the first Christians were often attacked and persecuted as 'Atheists'). The emergence of what might appropriately be called Christian Scepticism has also been reinforced in more esoteric circles by the cult of Post Modernism.

Unitarians certainly need to be very much aware of the most recent example of this trend — the Sea of Faith Movement stemming from the writings of Don Cupitt, which, while still claiming to be within the ambit of Christianity, appears to be willing to reject entirely the whole idea of God as an objectively existing Being. The word 'God', it is suggested, is merely a human projection, a verbal symbol standing for the sum of all human values. An admirable summary of this position can be found in Anthony Freeman's attractive little hook God in Us - which has the subtitle The Case for Christian Humanism. It was the publication of this book which led to Freeman's recent dismissal from an Anglican incumbency.

Where do contemporary Unitarians stand in this debate? We obviously need to acknowledge, in the first place, that this is one of those matters on which we must allow for diversity and agree to differ. Some of our fellow Unitarians must always be permitted to doubt the existence of God - if this seems to them to be where the truth lies. I would further suggest that we ought to he willing to acknowledge that Non-Theistic Humanism is a valid possibility. To insist that religion must always be equated with belief in God surely reflects a naive over-simplification. Unitarian Humanism, of course, does not always involve an outright rejection of Theism. But I sometimes think that some of our humanist co-religionists ought to he more willing to admit than they sometimes appear to be, that they are indeed rejecting the theistic hypothesis. Is there not a sense in which you either believe in God or you don't? However, I think that I ought perhaps to confess that I do have some sympathy with a remark attributed to Victor Hugo. When asked if he believed in God, he is said to have replied:- "Yes!… No!… Sometimes!" Maybe there is such a thing as a genuine Christian Agnosticism.

But having suggested that traditional Unitarians need to be more tolerant of Humanism, I would also like to ask for a similar tolerance on the part of Humanists. We are entitled to ask them to acknowledge that it is still possible and entirely legitimate for intelligent rational people, including Unitarians, to believe very sincerely in a personal God — even in a loving God. Traditional ethical Theism can indeed sometimes verge on the childish and sentimental, but this is by no means necessarily the case. In short, I myself remain convinced that there is no necessity whatsoever for modern Unitarianism to embrace a universal Humanism. I would like to quote a brief extract from The Remaking of Christian Doctrine, an excellent book by Maurice Wiles (yet another notable figure in the procession of Regius Professors at Oxford). I have always found his observations extremely helpful:

"God is not directly or irrefutably given. It is not only the fool who says in his heart that there is no God. You can be an atheist without being a fool; lots of people are. But when the principle of economy beckons me to dispense with the concept of God, I resist. To do so would be to leave a whole dimension of human experience even more opaque and inexplicable than it already is. Yet if it is true that any faithful account of human experience is bound to lack absolute coherence, an account which incorporates the concept of God is sure to lack it even more blatantly. The infinite God is infinitely resistant to our finite systematizations. Nonsense is still nonsense even when it is talked about God. Contradictions remain contradictions and cannot he rescued from their logical impropriety by the magical device of rechristening them paradoxes."

These words, of course, have the particular merit of reminding us that belief in God can never be a simple matter. The last two sentences are especially interesting. Anthony Freeman, in his book God in Us, quotes them with approval and uses them as an argument against Theism. But is there not a sense in which they might also apply to Humanism? To me, some of the Humanists' arguments often look suspiciously like contradictions posing as paradoxes!

There is, of course, much more one could say on the subject of the Debate about God - including all the issues raised by Feminist Theology. How far are we justified in calling God 'He' or even 'She' for that matter? As I have already suggested, I hope that all Unitarians now agree that we must not think of God wholly in masculine terms. But I also hope (as, again, I have already said) that we will resist the suggestion that God has to be interpreted wholly in feminine terms. Nowadays, we must surely acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with calling God our 'Heavenly Mother' — however strange that may still seem to some of us. But it is surely ridiculous to suggest that there is no truth whatsoever in the metaphor of Fatherhood, and that the time has come for the Lord's Prayer (or the 'Our Father' — as our Catholic friends so appropriately call it) to be discarded.

There is one other matter which intrigues me. When you address God (assuming that you want to address God) do you call him/her 'Thou' or 'You'? Is there any significance in the fact that some Unitarians often seem strangely reluctant, in their prayers and hymns, to address God as 'You' rather than 'Thee' or 'Thou' - something which most other Christian denominations now take in their stride?

The Way Ahead - Christian or Non-Christian?

Before I come to my final comments, I expect that you would like me to say something on the extent to which contemporary Unitarianism, in Britain no less than in the United States, is now characterised by a tendency to move further and further away from Christianity. That this is indeed the case, is, I suspect, the general impression of many members of the NSPCI.

My own view is that much of the alarm on this score is hardly justified. I am sure that the majority of contemporary British Unitarians continue to think of themselves as Christians. What is more, the image which they present is still for the most part thoroughly Christian. The ethos, outlook, beliefs and worship of most congregations are still in most respects, definitely and recognisably Christian. However, as I have already acknowledged more than once, there are of course some Unitarians who do not call themselves Christians - and who certainly do not want to be regarded as Christians. They insist that modern Unitarianism needs to move beyond Christianity. As I see it, this is a legitimate point of view. It is something on which we must agree to differ. After all, the debate on the rival merits of the terms 'Unitarian' or 'Free Christian' has been going on in our midst for more than 150 years! A more controversial issue is that which revolves around the suspicion, strongly felt in some quarters, that there is now strong opposition to the Christian tradition on the part of some leading contemporary Unitarians - and even an underground campaign against Christian Unitarianism. Some have seen Hymns for Living, the latest General Assembly hymnal, as itself a part of the conspiracy. But claims of this kind can be easily exaggerated. Hymns for Living certainly has its faults and deficiencies. But it can hardly be described as anti- Christian. It is surely highly significant that unlike most earlier Unitarian hymnals, it even gives us an unbowderlised version of the Christmas carol 0 Come All Ye Faithful, complete with the traditional refrain of '0 come let us adore him!'

If there was at one time some sort of conspiracy against Christian Unitarianism, I am sure that it has now largely disappeared. Perhaps this itself is in part a tribute to the work of the Unitarian Christian Association and its increasingly popular quarterly journal, the Unitarian Christian Herald - both of which were launched in 1991 specifically "to maintain and preserve the Christian Tradition within Unitarianism." Another strong influence has undoubtedly been Hymns of Faith and Freedom, an unofficial hymn-book sponsored by the Unitarian Christian Association. This is now in regular use in nearly one third of the congregations of the General Assembly. But whatever the cause, I now find that most of the Humanists amongst us - even our Secularists and Neo-Pagans - readily agree that Unitarians, if they wish, have every right to be Christian Unitarians.

How far we are still entitled to talk about 'Unitarian Christianity' is, of course, another matter. To my mind, a much more interesting question is this: what, at the present time, is the way forward for our movement'? Do we soft-pedal, or even repudiate our Christian roots and origins or do we stress and rejoice in them, boldly presenting Unitarianism as the obvious home for those Liberal-minded Christians who are alarmed by the increasingly strident voices of Conservative Fundamentalism? I leave others to supply their own answer to that question. I would like to end on a somewhat different note.

Final Comments

The trend which I would like to see growing and prospering within contemporary Unitarianism is one which, while insisting, on the one hand, that religion is meaningless without symbolism, metaphor, mystery and imagination, nevertheless also remains quietly confident that what we need above all is an undiminished trust in reason and intellectual argument. As I once heard an American Unitarian observe, Unitarians have a particular obligation to dedicate themselves always "to thorough and persistent head clearing." Perhaps this only means that we must continue to proclaim the virtues of the tradition of Rational Dissent. Like the original Socinians, we must always be devotees of 'right reason.' There is a very apt word for us in the writings of F.J.A.Hort, an eminent 19th century Christian scholar:

"There can be no surer sign of decrepitude and decay in faith than a prevalent nervousness about naming and commending reason, an unwillingness to allude to its existence, except under the wrappings of language which suggest that it is but a necessary evil."

I warmly welcome therefore the introduction of the Build-Your-Own-Theology courses among many of our congregations. These courses, which originated within American Unitarianism, are not without their defects, and I dislike the suggestion, inherent in their title, that we should ignore the classic systematic theology of the past, and set to work producing something better ourselves. Traditional mainstream theology, despite its obvious defects (some of which I have already emphasised), is not necessarily as trivial or irrelevant as some Unitarians seem to imagine. But anything which gets people thinking hard about their faith is always much to be welcomed. One of most disturbing aspects of the current religious scene generally is its superficial, sentimental triviality.

Concentration on reason and good thinking also serves to remind us that a living faith must be a changing faith. It is always good to recall that it was John Henry Newman no less - usually regarded as the ultimate Conservative Traditionalist - who once observed that "to live is to change - and to live well is to have changed often." Like most mainstream Christians, many Unitarians appear to be interested only in 'the faith once and for all delivered to the saints' - the 'saints' in our case, of course, being the great Unitarian giants of the past.

While we must never forget our roots, what we must do above all (as the great 19th century American Unitarian, Theodore Parker, reminded us in a famous sermon-title), is to distinguish continually between 'the transient and the permanent in religion'. Very recently, I was intrigued to discover, in the voluminous works of James Martineau (which still contain an immense amount of wisdom), an address with a similar title to that of Parker's, and in the closing observations, there is a bold and compelling affirmation of the inevitability of change and development in progressive religious belief:

"Without some provision for discharging from its terms what is perishable and obsolete, and permitting its indestructible truth to live into new forms, no church can permanently meet the conditions of human life. While affecting to represent the eternal counsel of God, it will slip away from the unresting intellect and affections of men. It is a lesson hard to learn, but sure to make itself felt at last, that a final church foregoes the future."

I was much struck by those concluding words, which Martineau himself puts in italics. Unitarianism has no place for the idea of 'a Final Church' — a church so convinced that it really has arrived, that it refuses to contemplate the possibility of further change.

But my own final words are a quotation from a somewhat different source. They are taken from a recent article by Lord Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and were presumably addressed primarily to Anglicans. But to me, they seem to he highly relevant to contemporary Unitarianism: "A church which listens only to its own tradition will end up speaking only to itself. A Church which listens only to what is happening in the world, will end up becoming only a dull echo of the latest liberal fashion."

*************************************************************

Biographical Details of Rev Arthur Long

The Rev Dr Arthur Long was Principal of the Unitarian College, Manchester from 1975 to 1988.

He was educated at Wembley County School and Exeter College, Oxford before training for the ministry at Manchester (now Harris-Manchester) College, Oxford and taking up a Hibbert Scholarship at New College, Edinburgh.

He served long and effective ministries in London and Lancashire. Always an enthusiast for ecumenism he was for thirteen years the secretary of the Bolton Council of Churches and was largely responsible for bringing the Unitarian College into the inter-denominational Northern Federation for Training in Ministry founded in 1984.

The editor of The Unitarian Christian Herald he is also a regular contributor to The Inquirer and Faith and Freedom and an Honorary Lecturer inn the Department of Religions and Theology at Manchester University.

He was President of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches 1983-4. In 1995 the United Protestant Theological Institute at Kolozsvar (Cluj) in Romania awarded him the degree of Doctor of Theology honoris causa.