It is very hard to define what Unitarianism actually is because there are so many possible definitions. In early Christianity they had what is known as an apophatic description of God. God could only be described in terms of what he was not – in those days there was no dispute about God’s gender.

Basically God was not all the things we are – stressed, stretched, rude, weak, overbearing, uncertain, over emotional, irreverent, carefree, careless and so on and so on – including sinful of course.

Unitarians could also be described in an apophatic way – by listing all the things that are not quite us – not quite a Christian denomination and not quite an unchristian one, not quite definable as a faith but not ‘not a faith’, not having a set pattern of worship but not having one much different from any other church, not tied to a tradition but not quite letting go of one either. Not pagan or earth spirit orientated but not without those elements; not buddhist but not without those elements either.

I think of the Unitarians as people on a mystical bridge that spans a divide between two continents. On the one side is the continent of religious tradition and on the other the continent of spiritual evolution. The Unitarian Movement is stretched across that bridge. There are people at both ends. There are those who are happy not to cross. They want to stay within the liberal christian tradition. There are those nearly or already on the other side who are free spirits, no longer part of a tradition but spiritual seekers who enjoy the company of fellow seekers. How do you describe all that to someone who has just been introduced?