Sometimes the comments is where all the fun is. At Chris Walton’s Philocrites blog, his article about Isaac Newton has morphed into a discussion about the possible future of Unitarian Christological thought. I won’t be chiming in there — I don’t have a horse in that race — except to note
- Â The Universalists have many of the same issues, but Christian Universalists have kept independent, if fragile, modes of discourse open while the Unitarians haven’t.
- I’d tone down calls for meetings or symposia as premature.
- I disagree with Jaume de Marcos (whose comment is repeated at his The Hanif Blog) that the Unitarians have “never had a clear christology.” They have — indeed, have had several — but like most communions, do not have a consistent Christology over time. Nor should they or need they. Readers will note that in ecumenical theology, the question of the nature and operation of the Atonement are live questions. If anything, the problem is too much consistency, that is, a Unitarian low humanitarianism forcing out all other Christologies.