|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Boston Unitarians and the Fatherhood of God
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was doing a bit of research the other day about King's Chapel, Boston which has a bit of an odd history.
The short version is that it was originally an Anglican Church until the Revolution, then attempted to get a minister ordained who held unorthodox Unitarian views, and when the Anglicans wouldn't do it, the wardens ordained him themselves. Today the church describes itself as "unitarian Christian in theology, Anglican in worship, and congregational in governance" - having continued with a modified Anglican prayerbook since 1785.
I know very little about Unitarians, but I was interested to watch this video by Daniel McKanan (it is quite long and there is just audio..)
McKanan is an academic at Harvard Divinity School, and part of what he said was that Protestants in general did not relate to God as Father - until the Unitarians pushed this, and that aspects of Unitarian theology became normal in mainline Protestant theologies.
I am interested in how the Unitarians have influenced others over time and how they still seem to have considerably cross-over, notably with Anglicans, in Boston.
Anyone know anything about that?
[ 26. June 2015, 08:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I have no idea of the context in Boston but to say that Protestants in general didn't relate to God as Father until prodded by the Unitarians seems to me to be an utterly ridiculous generalisation.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Hmm, the office of Evening Prayer from the traditional BCP gives us within the first few pages:
"... that we should not dissemble nor cloak them from the face of Almighty God our heavenly father ..."
"Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep ..."
"Our Father which art in heaven ..."
So unless Cranmer was a closet Unitarian, I agree with fletcher christian.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Yes, I think the point was about how we think of relating to God as Father rather than just saying the words. I suggest watching the vid for the full effect.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I have to admit that I didn't find the talk very interesting. But right from when some Independents/Congregationalists began to drift into what we now call Unitarianism, orthodox Christian opinion saw in it the heresy of Arius and said so.
What does come over from the talk, is that at the core of Dr McKanan's promotion of what he describes as Christian Unitarianism, is the idea that we evaluate (others would say judge) Jesus Christ by how well he fits our presuppositions, and then leave out the inconvenient bits that don't.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think a general point that is often made about Protestantism, particularly of the evangelical variety - is that it tends to be Christocentric.
I've heard it suggested that whilst the RCs put an emphasis on the Father, the Protestant Reformers stressed the Son and then the Pentecostals later stressed the Holy Spirit ...
I don't think it pans out anywhere near as neatly as that.
I do think that there has been a general sense for sometime that God the Father - or the fatherhood of God - has been neglected to some extent and needs recovery. Tom Smail's book 'The Forgotten Father' was an interesting contribution to all that ...
So, for instance, in various charismatic churches I know or once knew, there was a lot of stress on 'the Father-heart of God' and so on, as if this was an aspect that had been neglected or overlooked elsewhere.
Of course, if it is true that the Unitarians 'recovered' some kind of emphasis on God the Father then it seems that they've dropped God the Son and God the Holy Spirit somewhere along the line ...
To lose one Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity may have been an accident, but to lose two implies carelessness ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... To lose one Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity may have been an accident, but to lose two implies carelessness ...
That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit that I didn't find the talk very interesting. But right from when some Independents/Congregationalists began to drift into what we now call Unitarianism, orthodox Christian opinion saw in it the heresy of Arius and said so.
Fair enough, I thought it was interesting because I had not heard that perspective before.
On your other point, I'm still interested to hear whether and/or why Unitarians had such an impact (if indeed they did) given that others see their non-trinitarian aspect as being toxic.
quote:
What does come over from the talk, is that at the core of Dr McKanan's promotion of what he describes as Christian Unitarianism, is the idea that we evaluate (others would say judge) Jesus Christ by how well he fits our presuppositions, and then leave out the inconvenient bits that don't.
Yes, I am not advocating a Unitarian position, and I also thought it odd that McKanan seemed to be praising a view he didn't personally believe in. I can't really get my head around the point of the Unitarian church at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
We have a sometime shippie who is a Unitarian, as well as a history buff. I'll put a bug in his ear to come on over.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I found it rather telling when Dr McKanan argued from Unitarian theologians (if such be the right word) that Unitarians were able to speak particularly eloquently of relating to Jesus's humanity because they didn't believe he had any other nature.
What he didn't seem to notice, is that if Jesus only had a human nature, one would only be able to relate to the historical memory of that human nature and not to any living in-the-now reality of it.
I suppose others may argue that I'm being a bit unfair to Unitarians, but I'm not sure that I am. However, I don't think there were ever that many on this side of the water, and can't off hand recall having met one anywhere.
[ 26. June 2015, 14:32: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Tangent: I have a Unitarian cousin from the Boston area. When she came out to California with her company for a few years, she was disappointed that local Unitarians didn't have "liturgical" worship. That seemed quite odd to me. Liturgical Unitarianism? Now I understand where she got her perspective.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think a general point that is often made about Protestantism, particularly of the evangelical variety - is that it tends to be Christocentric.
I'd say that was more true of modern Evangelicalism than historic Protestantism. Again, most of the prayers in the BCP seem to be addressed to God the Father.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Tangent: I have a Unitarian cousin from the Boston area. When she came out to California with her company for a few years, she was disappointed that local Unitarians didn't have "liturgical" worship. That seemed quite odd to me. Liturgical Unitarianism? Now I understand where she got her perspective.
There is presumably also a distinction between the Anglophone Unitarian movement, much of which does not identify as Christian, and the Hungarian church which I understand is more or less what Lutherans would look like if Luther had rejected the Trinity along with Purgatory, transubstantiation and the invocation of the saints.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think a general point that is often made about Protestantism, particularly of the evangelical variety - is that it tends to be Christocentric.
I'd say that was more true of modern Evangelicalism than historic Protestantism.
This is so patently true that the first response of this evangelical upon reading it was "of course!" (as in, "how could it be otherwise???"). More soberly, "christocentrism" is one of the four corners of the Bebbington quadrilateral of evangelical distinctives.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I once went to Mill Hill Unitarian chapel in Leeds - they had a sort of choral matins but with all the references to the Trinity altered.
New Meeting in Birmingham used to be rather like that (it was the last place where I sang psalms to Anglican chant) although when I was there a few weeks ago for the installation of the new minister it had changed a lot and was much more eclectic and less Christian; I think that's the general direction of travel in British Unitarianism, though there's still a Unitarian Christian Association.
Ricardus is quite right about Unitarianism in Hungary, which was at the radical end of the Reformation but still Arian Christian; Unitarian students study together with Reformed and Lutheran students in the Protestant seminary in Cluj/Kolosvar. British and American Unitarianism sprang from quite different roots, a product of the Enlightenment.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, Luther did reject transubstantiation ... he adopted a form of 'consubstantiation' ...
Meanwhile, on the Unitarians -- I think they certainly did have an impact and there are probably plenty of closet unitarians still even among Anglican clergy - I might 'out' a few of them ...
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
It's certainly the case that 'Old Dissent', the Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists here in the UK battled with it throughout the 18th century and into the 19th. Whole congregations were rent asunder by the issue.
Wesleyan style revivalism didn't seem to suffer from it as much - and arguably, there were influences from Wesleyan and Anglican revivalism that percolated into the older Dissenting groups and helped stem the flow of Unitarianism there.
Historians of those movements would be better placed to comment on that - but it is an impression I've picked up.
I think part of the attraction of Unitarianism was that it seemed to offer a more 'rational' and less mystical way of doing religion - and it had echoes in Deism and so forth.
Unitarians often championed what we might call 'progressive' causes such as political reform, the Abolitionist movement and so on - Josiah Wedgwood the potter was a Unitarian and a very active Abolitionist.
Joseph Priestley the scientist, of course, was a prominent Unitarian - and suffered from the attentions of 'Church and King' mobs at times.
Contemporary evangelicals are very much a product of the Enlightenment too - but in a different kind of way.
I'd suggest that their influence has been along the lines of involvement with radical/progressive causes and a kind of rational/non-mystical and vatic approach to religion -- rather than anything to do with an emphasis on the Fatherhood of God.
Although there would have been a certain universalness of sympathy, of course - I've seen Unitarian chapels that have displayed all sorts of religious symbols and insignia on their literature - Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist ...
I've an idea Mill Hill Chapel in Leeds used to do that - although I never attended a service when I lived in that fair city.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We have a sometime shippie who is a Unitarian, as well as a history buff. I'll put a bug in his ear to come on over.
C'est moi, and part of my house is within the city limits of Boston, so I guess you could call me a "Boston Unitarian." I've even attended services at Kings Chapel, and the current minister there, Joy Fallon, was formerly a lawyer practicing in the same office as my wife, so there's that too.
Congregational Puritanism was the dominant and established religion throughout most of New England in the 18th century, and the orthodox theology was Dort Calvinism. However, at Harvard (the leading institution of religious training in the colonies) a "broad and catholick" spirit of theological inquiry, similar to what we today might label "liberal" or "progressive", was beginning to take hold among some of the faculty. Their concerns tended more toward questioning traditional Calvinist notions of soteriology (such as predestination, limited atonement, total incapacity) than christology, much as John Wesley's Arminianism did in the Church of England. However, because of this, they were also relatively tolerant of christological heterodoxy, if only because inquiry was encouraged and christology was not considered as critical a doctrinal point as soteriology.
At the same time, the pressures leading up to the American revolution were building, and when that lid blew off, the bishops and priests in the C of E retreated to England if only to avoid being tarred and feathered. That left Anglican congregations like King's Chapel without clergy, so they turned to home-grown divines for subtitute leadership. James Freeman, the young Harvard graduate whom King's hired, happened to be a low-christology Unitarian as well as a soteriological Arminian, and he accepted the call on the condition that he be allowed to remove the Trinitarian references from the Book of Common Prayer. To this day they still use his revised BCP at King's, and where you might expect to hear a doxology to "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," you will instead hear the equally scriptural "Now unto the King Eternal, Immortal, Invisible, the only Wise God, be honor and glory forever" (I Tim. 1:17 KJV).
But King's Chapel is unique among Unitarian churches in having an Anglican heritage. Most of the other old New England Unitarian churches were Congregational churches that followed the "broad and catholick" drift in Harvard's theology. Beginning around 1800 the tension between the orthodox and liberal faculty grew sharper, until in 1807 all the Calvinists resigned en masse and founded a rival seminary at Andover, ridiculing the liberals on their way out the door by accusing them of secretly concurring with English christological Unitarians. The epithet stuck even if it wasn't strictly or universally accurate. Over the next several decades many of the local churches experienced the same schism, and today on many town greens throughout northern New England you can find a Unitarian church on one side of the village green and a Congregational church on the other.
Both denominations have continued to drift in the liberal direction theologically in the centuries since, with Unitarians always a little more "out there" than Congregationalists. Many more Unitarian churches these days would define their theology as "non-creedal" or "liberal" than "Christian", while the Congregationalists still profess (nominally, at least) Trinitarian Christianity. In the meantime, though, King's Chapel plods along just as it always has, an anachronistic little gem within the larger denomination, with readings from the same weekly lectionary and liturgy from the same BCP that Freeman used. If you step inside you might even think you were in St. James's Piccadilly.
[ 26. June 2015, 16:30: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit that I didn't find the talk very interesting. But right from when some Independents/Congregationalists began to drift into what we now call Unitarianism, orthodox Christian opinion saw in it the heresy of Arius and said so.
Fair enough, I thought it was interesting because I had not heard that perspective before.
James Freeman, lay reader and later the first minister at King's, was Socinian rather than Arian in his christology, which put him at odds with the New England Congregationalist Unitarians.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
James Freeman, lay reader and later the first minister at King's, was Socinian rather than Arian in his christology, which put him at odds with the New England Congregationalist Unitarians.
He was, and one of the nicknames for King's Chapel was the "Socinian Stone Chapel". (It is build of granite rather than the more common brick.) But it didn't really put him at odds with other Unitarians, as (1) his was the first church in Boston to identify itself as Unitarian; (2) the early New England "Unitarians" were generally more interested in soteriology than christology anyway; and (3) they held a spectrum of christological views rather than one uniform christological doctrine.
It would take until 1819 for the first fully developed doctrinal manifesto of Boston Unitarianism, William Ellery Channing's sermon "Unitarian Christianity", to be declared. You can read it here: http://www.transcendentalists.com/unitarian_christianity.htm
[code]
[ 26. June 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Unitarian theology was (and still is) always evolving, though. Later in the 19th century, a Unitarian minister named James Freeman Clarke articulated (with a nod to the five pillars of the Temple and the five points of Dort) "The Five Points of the New Theology," which he identified as (1) the fatherhood of God, (2) the brotherhood of man, (3) the leadership of Jesus, (4) a richer concept of salvation, and (5) the "Continuity of Human Development in all worlds, or the Progress of Mankind onward and upward forever". You can read his whole essay here: http://tentmaker.org/articles/fivepoints.htm (This was soon lampooned as the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of man, the Leadership of Jesus, and the Neighborhood of Boston.)
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit that I didn't find the talk very interesting. But right from when some Independents/Congregationalists began to drift into what we now call Unitarianism, orthodox Christian opinion saw in it the heresy of Arius and said so.
Fair enough, I thought it was interesting because I had not heard that perspective before.
James Freeman, lay reader and later the first minister at King's, was Socinian rather than Arian in his christology, which put him at odds with the New England Congregationalist Unitarians.
The Very Rev. Bill Phipps, the past Moderator of the United Church of Canada ignited controversy by his Arian comments to the media twenty years ago. At the time, I wanted to hit him over the head with the Athanasian Creed.
Sometimes the UCCcan's Congregationalist heritage comes shining right through, for better or worse.
One of the highlights of the next General Council this summer is that we hope to sign an Intercommunion Agreement with the United Church of Christ. Which does raise the troublesome question of when we declared we were out of communion with one another, because I don't think we ever did. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Thanks fausto, so what about the influence on other Trinitarian denoms?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thanks fausto, so what about the influence on other Trinitarian denoms?
Well, I had never heard before that Unitarians' emphasis on the "fatherhood" of God was what let other Protestants to see him that way. Frankly, that seems hard to believe.
However, throughout the 19th century Unitarians were at the forefront of American intellectual life, including religious discourse but especially in the realm of applying religious principles to life. Harvard was a thoroughly Unitarian institution, and its leadership in American science and letters strongly informed the national conversation. Hawthorne, Longfellow, Melville, Emerson, Thoreau and other influential writers were all Unitarians, and many of their works had religious, typically anti-Calvinist, themes (e.g., The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick) or God-in-Nature themes (e. g., Walden, Song of Hiawatha).
Ever since the Great Awakening of the 18th century, the rational strain of Congregationalism (which Harvard led, and which became the Unitarian denomination in the 19th century) has stood against the ecstatic emotionalism and "fire-and-brimstone" theology originally led by figures such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. Unitarians adopted German emphasis on critical scriptural scholarship and spread it to other denominations in the US, I would argue. (You can see that happening in Channing's Unitarian Christianity" sermon, for example.)
Unitarians' influence on other denominations is probably most reflected in their renewed appreciation of Jesus's humanity as opposed to his divinity, though. Unitarians held differing views on what it means to call him the "son of God" but they generally agreed that his more important role was as the "second Adam", the archetype of the ideal human being. The Abelardian model of the Atonement being accomplished through Jesus's moral influence rather than through his propitiary blood sacrifice led them to develop a somewhat Pelagian soteriology of "salvation by character" and social action that had influence well beyond the denomination, even if the peculiarities of their soteriology and christology remained with them. Many of the leaders of the anti-slavery abolition movement were Unitarians, as were many of the leaders of the Social Gospel movement. Trinitarians who did not deny Jesus's divinity nevertheless found much resonance in the Unitarian call to follow more closely his human example.
Those originally Unitarian emphases still resonate strongly among other Protestant denominations today, even if some of the distinctive Unitarian doctrinal points do not. Critical scriptural scholarship is now widely accepted, except among fundamentalists. When evangelicals seek ecstatic "born again" conversions, that's an echo of Edwards and Whitefield, but when they ask "what would Jesus do", that's an echo of the Unitarians. And when Martin Luther King Jr. (who took his Ph.D. in Boston and attended Unitarian churches while he was living here) says, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," he is paraphrasing the 19th-century Unitarian minister and abolitionist Theodore Parker, who originally said, "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice."
[ 27. June 2015, 11:23: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Point of information: Luther also would reject consubstantiation. How the body and blood of Jesus is found in with and under the bread and wine was a mystery to Luther. It happened because Jesus said it is. Moreover, the unity of the real presence with the elements only happens in the taking and eating during communion. Outside the mass the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
(apologetically) ... Though the last two sentences are maybe a wee bit off, as I'm pretty sure Luther did not define matters even THIS much (e.g. precisely "when" (or if) the Lord's body and blood ceased to be present--which has resulted in a wide range of post-Communion practices across the Lutheran churches.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Fausto, that's interesting. I don't think the Unitarians have ever had anything like that sort of influence over here. In more recent centuries, that sort of earnest high-mindedness has tended to be associated with the Quakers or the Fabian Society which is secular.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Fausto, that's interesting. I don't think the Unitarians have ever had anything like that sort of influence over here. In more recent centuries, that sort of earnest high-mindedness has tended to be associated with the Quakers or the Fabian Society which is secular.
Well, you didn't have Emerson and Hawthorne, but you did have Coleridge and Dickens.
It has been said that Neville Chamberlain's Unitarian belief in human moral perfectibility was what led him to so drastically mishandle his negotiations with Hitler. (However, to be fair, it has also been said that it was Chamberlain's classified knowledge of Hitler's superior military power and Britain's weakness that led him to play for more time to allow Britain to rearm.)
One list of influential British Unitarians and Universalists, with links to biographies, is here: http://uudb.org/lists/listbritish.html
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Although Unitarians weren't disproportionately influential in this regard, they have also contributed their share of entries into the informal canon of standard Protestant hymns, including favorites such as "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear", "Once to Every Man and Nation", "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day", "Forward Through the Ages", and the best-known English translation of "A Mighty Fortress is Our God".
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Although Unitarians weren't disproportionately influential in this regard, they have also contributed their share of entries into the informal canon of standard Protestant hymns, including favorites such as "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear", "Once to Every Man and Nation", "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day", "Forward Through the Ages", and the best-known English translation of "A Mighty Fortress is Our God".
I don't know all of them, but "Once to Every Man and Nation" doesn't fit either 'informal canon' or 'favourite'. I'm relieved to say I haven't encountered it for years. It must be one of the worst hymns ever. Two serious theological errors and one of the most repulsive pieces of religious imagery one can imagine, is quite an achievement.
But I wouldn't have thought it was fair to blame the Unitarians for this. I don't imagine either the theological errors or the imagery have anything to do with Unitarian theology.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I didn't know about MLK and the Unitarians. That's really interesting.
It sounds like the North American Unitarians (maybe) had a wider religious influence than the British Unitarians, as those mentioned above seem largely seem to have been socially-minded but lapsed. It seems like the early 20 century Unitarians in the UK at least acted as the Quakers of a century or more before as a source of moral grounding and influence rather than as a religious force. But I could be completely wrong, as I said before, I know almost nothing about them.
I am with Enoch, though, those are a horrible selection of hymns.
[ 28. June 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know all of them, but "Once to Every Man and Nation" doesn't fit either 'informal canon' or 'favourite'. I'm relieved to say I haven't encountered it for years. It must be one of the worst hymns ever. Two serious theological errors and one of the most repulsive pieces of religious imagery one can imagine, is quite an achievement.
But I wouldn't have thought it was fair to blame the Unitarians for this. I don't imagine either the theological errors or the imagery have anything to do with Unitarian theology.
Not sure what you're identifying as error, but in its original form it was not a hymn. It was a much longer poem originally written to protest the Mexican-American War which gained additional popularity during the abolition movement. Perhaps the errors you perceive arise from the inartful redaction necessary to condense it and make it singable.
The theme of the longer poem is summed up in the line "New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth," which is maintained in the hymn version. The longer version compares the courage of the Mayflower Pilgrims with that of present-day faithful struggling with newer, present-day moral crises. (The Pilgrims were English Independents who crossed the ocean to be able to follow their own consciences rather than conforming to prevailing religious conventions, and were institutionally the direct ancestors of the Unitarians. First Church in Plymouth today still stands on the same spot where they first planted it in 1620, and it is Unitarian.)
The idea that revelation is not sealed and that God is always revealing new truths is characteristically Unitarian, and partially explains why Unitarian theology has been so fluid over the years. It can be traced directly back to the Rev. John Robinson's farewell address to the Pilgrims as they were leaving his congregation in Leyden, Holland. As recalled by Edward Winslow, "hee used these expressions, or to the same purpose: We are now ere long to part asunder, and the Lord knoweth whether ever he should live to see our faces again: but whether the Lord had appointed it or not, he charged us before God and his blessed Angels, to follow him no further then he followed Christ. And if God should reveal anything to us by any other instrument of his, to be as ready to receive it, as ever we were to receive any truth by his Ministry: For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind of our Church-Covenant (at least that part of it) whereby wee promise and covenant with God and one with another, to receive whatsoever light or truth shall be made known to us from his written Word: but withall exhorted us to take heed what we received for truth, and well to examine and compare, and weigh it with other Scriptures of truth, before we received it; For, saith he, It is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick Antichristian darknesse, and that full perfection of knowledge should breake forth at once."
The hymn version gained renewed popularity in the US during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's.
You can read the full text of the original poem here: http://www.bartleby.com/42/805.html
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am with Enoch, though, those are a horrible selection of hymns.
Oh come on -- even "A Mighty Fortress"!?
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
No. The usual version we know is 'A safe stronghold our God is still' translated by Thomas Carlyle. The only one of those above that is well known in England is 'It came upon a midnight clear'.
I've ranted about this before but the two theological errors in 'Once to every man and nation' are:-
1. The key message
"Once to ev'ry man and nation
Comes the moment to decide",
i.e. you're blessed with only one important moral decision in your life, and if you get that one right, you're OK.
Incidentally, if that was the Mexican-American War, who remembers that now? And of those that do, I don't know what position the writer was advocating, but at this distance in time it looks like a morally indefensible land grab.
2. "Toiling up new Calv'ries ever
With the cross that turns not back;"
There is only one calvary.
3. The repulsive imagery is obviously,
"By the light of burning martyrs,
Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,"
The picture of a colonnade or avenue of incandescent martyrs lighting one's ascending path like burning torches is deeply distasteful. Enlisting that image in that way mocks their deaths.
As bad hymns go, that one's hard to beat. Fortunately, it was never well known here. I'm glad it's gone out of use.
By association, for me, it has also spoilt the tune Ebenezer to which O the deep, deep love of Jesus goes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Enoch wrote:
quote:
"Toiling up new Calv'ries ever
With the cross that turns not back;"
There is only one calvary.
Wellll...
I remember when my father was too ill to do much work around the house, and a couple of our neighbours came over and helped us shovel the walk etc.
My mom, a devout but not at all scholastic Catholic, said to me "We've got Jesuses helping us shovel our walk!"
Maybe I should have fired back with "No mom! There was only one Jesus." But I don't really think there is anything wrong with using the word "Jesuses" to mean "people who act in the way exemplified by Jesus." As long as the listener understands that that's what is meant.
Similarly, I would read "toiling up new Cavalries" as something akin to "each man his cross to bear."
[ 28. June 2015, 20:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Enoch wrote:
quote:
3. The repulsive imagery is obviously,
"By the light of burning martyrs,
Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,"
The picture of a colonnade or avenue of incandescent martyrs lighting one's ascending path like burning torches is deeply distasteful. Enlisting that image in that way mocks their deaths.
It seems to me that's no more distasteful than saying "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin."
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
It seems to me that's no more distasteful than saying "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin."
Or in fact the more gruesome
quote:
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
[ 28. June 2015, 20:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
No. The usual version we know is 'A safe stronghold our God is still' translated by Thomas Carlyle. The only one of those above that is well known in England is 'It came upon a midnight clear'.
That's interesting. In the US the best known translation is the one by Frederic H. Hedge.
quote:
I've ranted about this before but the two theological errors in 'Once to every man and nation' are:-
1. The key message
"Once to ev'ry man and nation
Comes the moment to decide",
i.e. you're blessed with only one important moral decision in your life, and if you get that one right, you're OK.
I agree with you there.
quote:
Incidentally, if that was the Mexican-American War, who remembers that now? And of those that do, I don't know what position the writer was advocating, but at this distance in time it looks like a morally indefensible land grab.
Lowell, the author, thought so too. If you read the entire poem, you saw that it refers to slavery in several places. The Southern states espcially hoped to preserve their national political clout by carving more slaveholding states out of formerly Mexican territory. The war was especially unpopular among Northern abolitionists for that reason.
quote:
2. "Toiling up new Calv'ries ever
With the cross that turns not back;"
There is only one calvary.
Again, if you read the whole poem, you saw that Lowell is describing a succession of moral crises occurring through history, which in each case force conscientious believers to take difficult stands against prevailing standards of religion and morality. In doing so, they may even have to sacrifice themselves and be scorned as heretics by the powers-that-be, but in retrospect history will judge them to be true martyrs who advanced the general understanding of morality, just as Jesus was. That's what he means by "new Calvaries" -- it's a metaphorical comparison to Jesus's own ordeal.
quote:
3. The repulsive imagery is obviously,
"By the light of burning martyrs,
Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,"
The picture of a colonnade or avenue of incandescent martyrs lighting one's ascending path like burning torches is deeply distasteful. Enlisting that image in that way mocks their deaths.
That was actually a clumsy redaction by some overzealous editor. In the original it's "by the light of burning heretics" -- which may seem even more jarring, because in addition to the horrific imagery it implicitly claims that greater righteousness belongs to the heretic, while the conventionally orthodox stand in the wrong. Yet that is precisely Lowell's point: when we are faced with new, unfamiliar moral challenges, old traditions may prove to be unhelpful or even misleading. Jesus was executed as a blasphemer; during the Wars of Religion countless Protestants were killed for heresy. Over the sweep of history it has often been the martyrs and heretics of their time who have discerned and witnessed further Right and Truth to future generations. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it "costly grace".
[ 29. June 2015, 01:18: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Many more Unitarian churches these days would define their theology as "non-creedal" or "liberal" than "Christian", while the Congregationalists still profess (nominally, at least) Trinitarian Christianity. In the meantime, though, King's Chapel plods along just as it always has, an anachronistic little gem within the larger denomination, with readings from the same weekly lectionary and liturgy from the same BCP that Freeman used. If you step inside you might even think you were in St. James's Piccadilly.
Apropos of nothing much, the other half of UUism, the Universalists, also still have the occasional anachronistic little gem, like the First Universalist Church in Providence, which has services based on the 1872 Universalist Book of Prayer (not the right edition but same book I think). Their doxology is trinitarian.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Many more Unitarian churches these days would define their theology as "non-creedal" or "liberal" than "Christian", while the Congregationalists still profess (nominally, at least) Trinitarian Christianity. In the meantime, though, King's Chapel plods along just as it always has, an anachronistic little gem within the larger denomination, with readings from the same weekly lectionary and liturgy from the same BCP that Freeman used. If you step inside you might even think you were in St. James's Piccadilly.
Apropos of nothing much, the other half of UUism, the Universalists, also still have the occasional anachronistic little gem, like the First Universalist Church in Providence, which has services based on the 1872 Universalist Book of Prayer (not the right edition but same book I think). Their doxology is trinitarian.
True enough. The Universalist National Memorial Church in Washington, DC, is similar, although not quite so assertively Trinitarian.
Meanwhile, the Unitarian church in Providence up until just a couple of weeks ago had a minister who was also a Zen Buddhist roshi.
And one of my favorite UU ministers leads a congregation that is triply affiliated with the UUA, the United Church of Christ, and the American Baptist Convention.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Whoa. The mind boggles. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
ABC is one thing. I'd like to see them try with the SBC ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Many more Unitarian churches these days would define their theology as "non-creedal" or "liberal" than "Christian", while the Congregationalists still profess (nominally, at least) Trinitarian Christianity. In the meantime, though, King's Chapel plods along just as it always has, an anachronistic little gem within the larger denomination, with readings from the same weekly lectionary and liturgy from the same BCP that Freeman used. If you step inside you might even think you were in St. James's Piccadilly.
Apropos of nothing much, the other half of UUism, the Universalists, also still have the occasional anachronistic little gem, like the First Universalist Church in Providence, which has services based on the 1872 Universalist Book of Prayer (not the right edition but same book I think). Their doxology is trinitarian.
Yes, that occurred to me as well: the flip side of non-credal is that you're free to believe in the Trinity. First Providence's service of Morning Prayer does indeed have the Gloria Patri and even calls it that. I gather (Communion is once a month.
We don't really have the Universalist "half" in Canada: although they were once more numerous than Unitarians, there were only three congregations left at the time of the merger, and the Canadian Unitarian Council doesn't preserve the label in its name (though it does in several other contexts) .
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
fausto, can you help me understand why these groups, which apparently have equal-and-opposite theological views and practices co-exist in the one umbrella group? I just don't understand the thinking behind being a Christian congregation in an organisation which is.. I'm not sure what the correct term is.. post-christian (?)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But King's Chapel is unique among Unitarian churches in having an Anglican heritage.
But don't some other churches, particularly in the Boston area, follow the King's Chapel, Anglican tradition instead of the Congregationalist tradition?
For instance
this church, uses the King's Chapel Prayer Book, and the church seems to have been founded by King's Chapel Brahmins moving from Beacon Hill out to the 'burbs.
Do you know of any other Anglican Unitarians? Or are these the only two?
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But King's Chapel is unique among Unitarian churches in having an Anglican heritage.
But don't some other churches, particularly in the Boston area, follow the King's Chapel, Anglican tradition instead of the Congregationalist tradition?
For instance
this church, uses the King's Chapel Prayer Book, and the church seems to have been founded by King's Chapel Brahmins moving from Beacon Hill out to the 'burbs.
Do you know of any other Anglican Unitarians? Or are these the only two?
There are other Christian churches in the UUA, but their roots are in the Congregational tradition. Chestnut Hill began as a daughter congregation of King's Chapel transplants, and is the only other one with an Anglican heritage that I am aware of. Its Anglican heritage is only indirect, though, because although it uses the King's Chapel liturgy, it was never an Anglican or Episcopalian church.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
fausto, can you help me understand why these groups, which apparently have equal-and-opposite theological views and practices co-exist in the one umbrella group? I just don't understand the thinking behind being a Christian congregation in an organisation which is.. I'm not sure what the correct term is.. post-christian (?)
Historically, the Unitarians, Congregationalists and Baptists all trace their origins to a single congregation of Dissenters who secretly met in Gainsborough (Lincs) and nearby Scrooby (Notts), and who emigrated to Holland in several waves in the early 17th century to escape persecution at home. Their "Brownist" theology emphasized a congregational polity in which a "church" was constituted only of the members of an individual congregation gethered to one another by a congregational covenant, and was independent of all other churches. Many of the Mayflower Pilgrims were Brownists who had belonged to the Scrooby congregation, and both the UUA and UCC denominations claim direct institutional descent from them and their "Puritan" sister churches in New England. Likewise, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys were veterans of Gainsborough whose contact with Anabaptists in Holland led to the founding of independent Baptist churches. As a practical matter, the congregational covenant of churches in the Brownist tradition took the place of creeds and confessions in other denominations, but often included far less doctrinal affirmation.
Many rural farm towns in New England which had sprouted multiple congregations of various Protestant denominations during the "Second Great Awakening" of the early 19th century lost so much population in succeeding years that supporting several distinct congregations was no longer financially feasible. In some cases churches simply closed their doors and former members were absorbed by the remaining churches, but in other cases the congregations merged into a "federated" church that preserved former denominational affiliations. This was especially easy to accomplish in denominations with a tradition of congregational rather than hierarchical polity. Federated churches that survive today typically tolerate a fairly broad range of personal belief, and their worship tends to emphasize those beliefs that are most widely shared rather than the distinctives that separate one tradition or doctrinal system from another.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
fausto, can you help me understand why these groups, which apparently have equal-and-opposite theological views and practices co-exist in the one umbrella group? I just don't understand the thinking behind being a Christian congregation in an organisation which is.. I'm not sure what the correct term is.. post-christian (?)
Well your pointer is to a federated church, Unitarian Universalist (orig. Universalist), United Methodist, and United Church of Christ which in its current structure seems to date from the 1920s but roots back to the 18th century (when it was several independent churches sharing a building but not services); it is the only church in the community and seems to double as a community center. The current minister is UCC. The URL http://www.federatedchurchmarlborough.org/meetminister.html has info on some members. Members can choose to affiliate with any of the three denominations or just to the federation. Some seem to have switched denominations without ever leaving the church. There are a lot of UUs who consider Jesus as a moral exemplar even if they don't consider him god.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Moreover, in the liberal Protestant seminaries, ministers of many denominations receive essentially the same training regardless of their denominational identities. For example, Andover Seminary was founded in the early 1800's by strictly orthodox Calvinists who withdrew from Harvard because it was becoming too liberal, but a century later it briefly reunited with Harvard before merging with a Baptist seminary and creating what is now Andover-Newton Theological School. The ANTS student body in 2014 represented 47 different religious affiliations, of which 40% were UCC, 17% UU, 14% Baptist, and even 10% non-Christian.
When denominational differences have more to do with governance and history and worship style than with what is actually being spoken from the pulpit, it is easier for people of various denominational identities to worship together.
[ 29. June 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
