Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal, non-dogmatic religious movement that respects religious pluralism and each individual's right to search for his own path to truth and meaning. Outwardly, their religious services resemble those of more orthodox Christian denominations, but their members have a wide variety of beliefs, which include Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, Humanists, and even atheists. What they do have in common is a strong emphasis on social activism and social justice. In other words, their emphasis is on "right action" and not "right belief." Now, as an interesting thought experiment, try to imagine that Jesus himself was a Unitarian Universalist and that the message he was preaching was consistent with their approach. How radically different would that make his version of Christianity from the version we have of it today? We'd have a version of Christianity that placed its main emphasis on doing good works and building a better world in the here and now, and considerably less emphasis on making sure everybody said the "right prayers", or believed in the "right version of god." There is good evidence to suggest that Jesus' approach to social problems was similar to that of the UUs. To suggest that his approach to faith was the same is quite a bit more problematic. But I will enter a few pieces of evidence in support of that hypothesis. 1. Jesus never wrote anything down. The earliest books of the bible weren't written until the 70s CE. This means that Jesus' message was passed along solely by word of mouth for nearly four decades after his death. The important question here is why didn't he write anything down? I think perhaps its because he simply didn't want it to be written down. Jesus didn't want his words to become an inflexible dogma. He wanted them to remain a flexible and pragmatic approach to how to live in this world. An approach that would allow for different approaches to the truth. Unfortunately, his followers eventually wrote down what they thought he had said and it eventually became not just an inflexible dogma, but a badly corrupted, inflexible dogma. 2. Jesus spoke in parables. Once again, we see Jesus' pragmatism at work. He deliberately spoke in a manner which allowed for a variety of interpretations. He didn't box people into a tight dogma, but allowed for some latitude in how things should be seen. His program of social activism allowed for some flexiblility and even contradictory approaches to the truth. 3. Jesus was opposed to the Temple State. We see Jesus tangling with the Pharisees and the Temple State repeatedly. Perhaps the reason here was that they had set themselves up as a barrier between god and the people. By trying to enforce a specific approach to the truth (theirs) they were hindering the search for truth more than helping it. Jesus circumvented the Temple State by asserting the people's right to search for their own path to the truth, without interference from the Temple hierarchy. So that's the line of thought I've been working with recently. I admit that it's quite speculative and that it may have more than a few holes in it, but I'd appreciate anyone's input into the matter, Christian or otherwise.
I was about to post a reply to one of your posts on the "How to get to heaven" thread, but was informed it was closed. What's with that? Anyhow, I have real doubts that we'll ever find the historical Jesus, but the one I worship has some things in common with the UUs. I really don't see him as quite the social reformer you do. The UUs I know tend to be political progressive or liberal reformers, and I don't think Jesus was a oriented that way. He did reach out to the outcasts and dregs of society, but viewed the Roman puppet government of Herod as something corrupt, beyond reform, soon to be swept away, and irrrelevant to his mission. The Temple was a different story, but his mission was reform of the spirit. The UUs are also non-credal, and Jesus preached a definite belief system, as the "Way, the Truth and the Light". I doubt that he'd be as open minded toward pagans and atheists as UUs are. The question I wanted to ask on the other thread had to do with your comment that Christianity didn't become oppressive until 315. Who did they oppress then? Constantine didn't end persecution of Christians until the Edict of Milan in 313, and Nicea didn't happen until 325, and even then I wouldn't call them "oppressive", although Constantine did impose restrictions on Jews and gave his backing to the Nicene orthodoxy. There were plenty of persecutions of Christians before that time, but none by Christians, although, as you say, there was some pretty intense competition and in-fighting among Ebionites, Paulists, and Gnostics, and a condemnation of rivals as heretics.
I have no idea why that thread was closed. I thought it was just starting to get good. Alas... I don't think Jesus meant to reform the Temple system. I agree with you that it was beyond reform. I don't think his mission was to dabble in temporal politics at all, but to withdraw from it as completely as possible. I think he meant for his followers to form their own egalitarian and communal society, with no rulers or priestly class, and where all goods were held in common. A society where former princes and former beggars would mix as equals and share equally in the bounty of the Lord. Now, I agree with you that a spiritual transformation of the individual was necessary before he could be expected to work for such a radical idea. But that transformation was the means, and not the end. The end goal was the building of a just and righteous community which would be the model for the outside world. It is likely that you are right in that Jesus did preach a definite belief system. But what was it? I do not think the bible gives us an accurate representation of what it might have been. Jesus was a Jew, and it goes without saying that he believed in the Jewish God. But then what? I don't think that Jesus thought of himself as divine, or that he was the "son of God." I think a lot of work needs to be done before we can give a reasonable reconstruction of what Jesus' belief system was, or of it's exclusivity. So I'm not saying that it was likely that Jesus was non-credal, but at the same time I don't think it was an impossibility either. In any event, I think he was probably more flexible that most of his current followers. My comments about Christians persecuting others was primarily directed toward their bitter struggles with the other "heretical" groups. Whether there were any physical persecutions before 315 is not something that concerns me greatly. I will withdraw that allegation for now.
