It seems I've got myself into some more trouble again, this time at Thinking Anglicans, after I decided to make some increasingly rare comments (that were accepted). I'm not in trouble with the blog owners, as far as I can tell, but with one of the normally broad comment-makers who dismissed my making any comment at all.
the matter of entryism all over again, coming to Sheffield, and I commented because I've had this as a main feature of my own blogging and comment making in years past. I'd taken the time to transcribe a video of the entryism strategy which, by the existence then of text, promoted my blog and comments in the public sphere among other blogs. But perhaps I went too far, because then at Thinking Anglicans came a more 'devotional' entry which did have questions built in that I answered from my perspective using history or its absence. Thus creating debate, with Erika Baker debating me again, someone referred to the pointlessness of such historical scrutiny as just the resultant all-too-familiar denial of Christ and so I answered Erika and then added that no I don't follow Christ. To which the normally broad minded 'Father Ron Smith' wondered why I bothered to comment and regarded me as necessarily adverserial. But (as I hope will appear) I am not adverserial as the questions within were open to access by anyone using history, but I am not a follower of Christ. What makes this more interesting is that the first blog on entryism turned into the apparent heresies of The Episcopal Church and its leaders, and Martin Reynolds (who once telephoned me!) regarded the views as within Anglican diverse opinion. So I asked what's that and then 'Helen' refers to the Jesus of the Gospels as distinct from the Jesus of Paul (which I think is not quite right: the Jesus of the Gospels is still the Jesus of Paul, it's the Jesus of history that is the issue).
So having bowed out earlier thanks to Rev. Ron Smith, I make a comment that the boundaries could be the incarnation (that somehow the definitiveness of Jesus tells us something about the world) and the resurrection (that Jesus returns in some sense that defines the future).
This is obviously very loose, and on reflection would have been considered Unitarian in the nineteenth century if not largely so in the first half of the twentieth century. I suppose I should add a focus upon these, but that would still be the case for Unitarianism over that time. Although I could add 'The Trinity' the fact is that despite the liturgy many an Anglican is Unitarian in the old theological sense or possibly Arian in some sense. (Pure Arianism is as supernaturalist as anything else: but there is a kind of acquisition of subordinate divinity that some believe.)
I'm not a follower of anyone, that's all. It doesn't make me hostile to Christian sources, and I still use them. I also use Buddhist, Humanist and Pagan. There are no boundaries. I am not limited to any particular book of scriptures. Jesus is not definitive for me, but there are ethical arguments and investigations about how ethics have possibly been lived, just as there are claims about religious and ethical pathways. We are not forced to accept one package or another, but can mix and match where there is a join. When the chips are down I am a religious humanist, but draw from various sources. At the moment I'm looking again at a book on liturgy and all its relationships, and thinking how these relate to service construction. There are areas to consider of processing through, of exchange and gift, of sorry and thanks and carrying on. I might chat about these ideas with friends going on a Unitarian worship course, and I might add an analysis of liturgy on my website. But it is not Christian as such, and it's a matter of clarity that it is not.
Here is a very interesting 'first impressions' of someone at a Unitarian church and meeting someone who says she's Unitarian but not Christian.