Many Unitarians have asserted the unity of God merely as a means of distancing themselves from uncomfortable Christological issues, including the “Father and Son” language used to describe Christ’s relationship with God. Sadly, for many American Unitarians in the 1800s, this developed to the point of dismissing Jesus and declaring themselves non-Christians.

It is particularly ironic that Muslims take the Christhood of Jesus more seriously than many who continue to call themselves Unitarian, a theological term that makes little sense outside of the context of post-Nicene Christianity.

Still, the Reform understands the difficulties that Christology has posed for rationalist Unitarians, and particularly the difficulty that the Father-Son relationship creates for those dedicated to worship of One God.  AUR also sympathizes with the monotheistic impulse in Islám to condemn the easily misinterpreted Father-Son Christology, even as Islám recognizes Jesus as the Christ/Messiah (مسيح) and the Word of God, or Kalimat-Alláh (كلمة أﷲ ) in Arabic.

Talking about the relationship of God and Christ in such creaturely biological terms as “Father and Son” carries with it the danger of confusing the ignorant and diminishing the Creator.

However, Reform Unitarianism does not stand in rejection of Father-Son Christology, but in defense of its underlying meaning.  The theological purpose behind describing the link between God and Christ in terms of a Father and His Son is to establish an intimate but vertical relationship between the two as the very definition of Christhood.

Fathers and sons are not equals; fathers are above and sons are below. Continue reading →