Thread: Boston Unitarians and the Fatherhood of God Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029492
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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 ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Margaret (# 283) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
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.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
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.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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 ]
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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.)
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Thanks fausto, so what about the influence on other Trinitarian denoms?
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
(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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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 ]
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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"!?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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."
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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 ]
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
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.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Whoa. The mind boggles.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
ABC is one thing. I'd like to see them try with the SBC
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
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) .
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This church has triple affiliation. I can't imagine how that actually works.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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 (?)
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
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?
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
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.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
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 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm sorry, I confused things by giving a link to a federated church (although your replies on this topic were also interesting), I was wondering what is the point of being a Christian congregation in the UU (as a denomination.. or whatever it is that you'd call it).
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was wondering what is the point of being a Christian congregation in the UU (as a denomination.. or whatever it is that you'd call it).
I suppose, having followed the thread, that if your theology says your church stops at the limit of your own congregation, then you might simply see continuing within the UU as a legacy primarily, but also useful for some weight of numbers/topcover/whatever, even though you don't share much with the other congregations.
In some ways a bit like being an independent store that's a member of a buying group like Euronics, for example.
Don't know, just musing - seems to work for them.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, I confused things by giving a link to a federated church (although your replies on this topic were also interesting), I was wondering what is the point of being a Christian congregation in the UU (as a denomination.. or whatever it is that you'd call it).
A lot of Christian UUs these days wonder the same thing, I'll admit. Some of them appreciate the historic Christian witness of earlier Unitarians, even though it is no longer widely held across the denomination. Some of them find their personal religious orientation, although essentially Christian, too heterodox to be easily accepted in other Christian sects but welcome as one more "flavor" in the diverse blend of spiritual orientations that comprises today's typical UU church. Some of them see their Christian understanding as being complemented or supplemented by religious insights from beyond the Christian tradition, which are welcome in UU churches but not in some of the more traditional Christian ones. Where a lot of these UU Christians are gathered under one roof, what you get is a UU Christian congregation.
There is a UU Christian website ( uuchristian.org ) that you might enjoy exploring. A lot of people seem to like the prayer and "virtual monastery" sections in particular. I think you might see from surfing around there that the things that distinguish Unitarian or Universalist Christians from other Protestants are not much more dramatic in practice than, say, the things that distinguish Anglicans from Presbyterians or Methodists from Lutherans.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was wondering what is the point of being a Christian congregation in the UU (as a denomination.. or whatever it is that you'd call it).
I suppose, having followed the thread, that if your theology says your church stops at the limit of your own congregation, then you might simply see continuing within the UU as a legacy primarily, but also useful for some weight of numbers/topcover/whatever, even though you don't share much with the other congregations.
In some ways a bit like being an independent store that's a member of a buying group like Euronics, for example.
Don't know, just musing - seems to work for them.
Yes, for a few of our churches the denominational affiliation is probably more a matter of history and circumstance than present-day identity. That's possible because the polity is still very congregational and the denominational structure is as a loose association of autonomous but collaborative congregations, rather than a top-down hierarchy. That's even reflected in the name of the denomination: it's the Unitarian Universalist Association, not the Unitarian Universalist Church.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
fausto, thank you very much for your informative posts. The ecclesial history of King's Chapel is interesting.
Wandering through Boston the other week, I speculated on the naming of the pre-eminent Episcopalian Church in the midst of this heavily Unitarian environment: TRINITY, Copley Square... a gesture of, shall we say, three fingers up to those of non-Trinitarian persuasion.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
fausto, thank you very much for your informative posts. The ecclesial history of King's Chapel is interesting.
Wandering through Boston the other week, I speculated on the naming of the pre-eminent Episcopalian Church in the midst of this heavily Unitarian environment: TRINITY, Copley Square... a gesture of, shall we say, three fingers up to those of non-Trinitarian persuasion.
Oh, I don't think so. Phillips Brooks was on very good terms with his Unitarian colleages. And for their part, they knew perfectly well who was heterodox and who wasn't.
On the other hand, the sculpture of the chambered nautilus that was recently installed in the pediment of St. Paul's Cathedral during its renovation -- that caused some heartburn, but among the more traditional 'Piskies, not the "if-it-ain't-broke-fix-it-anyway" UUs. Maybe because it wasn't a more overtly Christian symbol, maybe because it is just plain double-ugly, or maybe because it recalls the local Unitarian poet Oliver Wendell Holmes and his ode to leaving the past behind more vividly than anything Anglican.
The nautilus: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/01/nautilus-st-pauls-episcopal-church_n_4702350.html
Holmes: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173644
[ 29. June 2015, 19:49: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Oh I don't know, that's quite attractive compared to some of the things we put up outside churches.
That said, it does seem a bit odd that UU churches would be upset at other churches using "less Christian" symbols.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh I don't know, that's quite attractive compared to some of the things we put up outside churches.
That said, it does seem a bit odd that UU churches would be upset at other churches using "less Christian" symbols.
You misunderstand me. UUs (at least, the ones who recognize the reference) are chuckling. It's Episcopalian traditionalists who are grousing.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Wandering through Boston the other week, I speculated on the naming of the pre-eminent Episcopalian Church in the midst of this heavily Unitarian environment: TRINITY, Copley Square... a gesture of, shall we say, three fingers up to those of non-Trinitarian persuasion.
Trinity Church is one of the colonial parishes of the city (the building is mid-Nineteenth Century), and it was founded in 1733. That's well before Unitarianism was a solidly organized or fleshed out enterprise in New England. That's not to say, however, that there weren't some "liberals" floating around at the time!
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Wandering through Boston the other week, I speculated on the naming of the pre-eminent Episcopalian Church in the midst of this heavily Unitarian environment: TRINITY, Copley Square... a gesture of, shall we say, three fingers up to those of non-Trinitarian persuasion.
Trinity Church is one of the colonial parishes of the city (the building is mid-Nineteenth Century), and it was founded in 1733. That's well before Unitarianism was a solidly organized or fleshed out enterprise in New England. That's not to say, however, that there weren't some "liberals" floating around at the time!
I confess my comment was purely (wickedly and humorously) conjecture on my part, with neither offense nor inclusion of actual historical content intended. In advance of my recent travels, I'd read a little about the faith life of pre- and post-Revolutionary Boston, which is why I found the stories around King's Chapel interesting.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
In Cambridge, just outside Boston, you have the joy of First Parish in Cambridge (UU) and First Church in Cambridge (UCC) about a quarter-mile from one another, both claiming to have been founded in 1636, with Christ Church (Episcopal) in between (1759). They're both, of course, correct in that they're the two descendants of the original church in Cambridge—although of course you can tell who won in the initial split by the fact that the UUs and Episcopalians are on either side of the old town burying ground, while the (then) orthodox Congregationalists had to move up the street.
Most towns in New England (especially in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire) have a town green featuring "First Church of _____" that once served as the sole meeting house for the Church gathered in that town and the seat of the Town Meeting as well. Whether they're run by the UCC or UUs now is split, as you could find by Googling "First Church Massachusetts."
I've always been a bit curious to know how a minister is trained and called to one of the two Unitarian post-Anglican parishes. They're probably not using that prayer book in their field ed site placements anywhere else!
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I've always been a bit curious to know how a minister is trained and called to one of the two Unitarian post-Anglican parishes. They're probably not using that prayer book in their field ed site placements anywhere else!
They might raid other denominations. King's Chapel's assistant minister is ordained in the United Church of Christ but raised Catholic. The senior minister also appears to be ordained in the United Church of Christ (and won a scripture reading prize while at Harvard Divinity).
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
I've always been a bit curious to know how a minister is trained and called to one of the two Unitarian post-Anglican parishes. They're probably not using that prayer book in their field ed site placements anywhere else! [/QB]
Unitarian ministers are required to hold M. Div. degrees from an accredited divinity school. They receive much the same training as ministers in other Protestant denominations.
The previous senior minister at King's Chapel, Earl Holt, was a graduate of the UU-affiliated Starr King seminary (which is a member school of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA), and came to Kings Chapel after 27 years serving the First Unitarian Church of St. Louis. The current minister, Joy Fallon, took her M. Div. at Harvard.
I imagine many UU ministers might find the routine of conducting worship according to the prescribed forms of the BCP to be a welcome relief, compared to the challenge of having to gin up a new order of worship out of thin air each week!
[ 13. July 2015, 17:33: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Having got your MDiv, what do you have to convince other people that you don't believe that the others do, to be accepted as a Unitarian minister?
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Having got your MDiv, what do you have to convince other people that you don't believe that the others do, to be accepted as a Unitarian minister?
I don't understand your question.
There's quite a broad variety of beliefs among Unitarians, not only among the ministers but also among the laity. If you're a minister trying to persuade a UU congregation to call you, it's probably not as important that you believe what they do, as that you are able to serve all of them respectfully in the variety of beliefs they hold.
In my (limited) observation, there seem to be a lot more Christians (as well as a lot more non-Christians who are nevertheless respectful of Christianity), among the UU clergy than the UU laity.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
What I meant by the question is this. If a person has trained alongside students who hold more conventionally 'orthodox' views, and has taken the same exams as they have, to be appointed to be a Unitarian minister, do they have to convince the congregation that they don't have any sneaking trinitarian tendencies, e.g. that they are fully convinced that Arius was right? Or does no one ask that question? Do congregations assume the person wouldn't be applying if he or she believed Jesus was Son of God rather than a great teacher?
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
At least in the US (I don't know about Britain), the narrow christological question of Trinitarianism versus Unitarianism is no longer a current issue in most of the denomination. (Many historians would argue that it never was, and that it always troubled outside critics more than our own congregants.) The Unitarians and Universalists merged into a single denomination in 1961, and there were (and still are) both Unitarian and Trinitarian Universalists in the merged denomination. (For exaample: http://www.firstuniversalist.net/ ) A more troublesome challenge, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been finding ways for non-theistic Humanists and theists of all persuasions to worship together. Typically that conflict is resolved by worship that emphasizes shared moral and ethical values rather than doctrinal and/or cosmological propositions.
[ 14. July 2015, 12:21: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
... A more troublesome challenge, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been finding ways for non-theistic Humanists and theists of all persuasions to worship together. Typically that conflict is resolved by worship that emphasizes shared moral and ethical values rather than doctrinal and/or cosmological propositions.
I'd have thought a more fundamental challenge would be how a non-theist would worship or why they should want to. Before whom do they consider they are bowing down?
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd have thought a more fundamental challenge would be how a non-theist would worship or why they should want to. Before whom do they consider they are bowing down?
Well some look more for community not that UUs are very good at bowing anyway. My local UU church has both a Sunday morning discussion group and two Sunday services [one in Summer] (those going to the discussion group can, but don't necessarily do, attend the second service). Standard service has music including congregational singing, welcome, lighting the chalice to start the formal part of the service, joys and concerns when congregants and minister voice these (anniversaries, births, deaths, illnesses, recoveries, ups and downs, national/international events) followed with a candle lighting, a sermon, finishes with the chalice being doused, everyone breaks for coffee and discussion, and once a month, lunch at the church.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
... A more troublesome challenge, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been finding ways for non-theistic Humanists and theists of all persuasions to worship together. Typically that conflict is resolved by worship that emphasizes shared moral and ethical values rather than doctrinal and/or cosmological propositions.
I'd have thought a more fundamental challenge would be how a non-theist would worship or why they should want to. Before whom do they consider they are bowing down?
Not before whom, but before what. (Or I could be droll and say Plato and Marcus Aurelius.) They affirm and celebrate values, principles and ideals. Some of them might say that the "God" whom theists worship is a figurative personification of the same principles and ideals, and worship "God" as a figure in that sense without concern for whether "He" literally exists.
[ 14. July 2015, 15:58: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or does no one ask that question? Do congregations assume the person wouldn't be applying if he or she believed Jesus was Son of God rather than a great teacher?
Is it correct to say that the Unitarians are/were Arians - in the sense of denying the deity of Christ? I thought the idea was that they were modalists - in the sense of seeing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as aspects of one God.
Or maybe there are lots of different opinons in Unitarianism, it seems rather a free-for-all.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or does no one ask that question? Do congregations assume the person wouldn't be applying if he or she believed Jesus was Son of God rather than a great teacher?
Is it correct to say that the Unitarians are/were Arians - in the sense of denying the deity of Christ? I thought the idea was that they were modalists - in the sense of seeing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as aspects of one God.
Or maybe there are lots of different opinons in Unitarianism, it seems rather a free-for-all.
The "Oneness Pentecostals" are modalists.
The (christological, but not necessarily denominational) "Unitarians" are generally Arians or Socinians.
But christology in the American Unitarian churches has always been fluid and diverse rather than specific and dogmatic. The term "Unitarian" was first applied to them not by themselves as a doctrinal position, but by Calvinist critics who deplored their latitudinarianism. If there is a defining dogma that has remained constant over the years, it is an optimistic view of human nature and a correspondingly somewhat Pelagian soteriology (in contrast to the Augustinian/Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and penal substitution), not a firm christology. It is their optimistic view of human nature that allows for latitude in their christology.
But it also allows for latitude in other beliefs. UUs today place a great deal of importance on their claim to be "non-creedal" and on their affirmation of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning", and as a result, they often describe themselves as "non-Christian" or "post-Christian" despite their historical roots in liberal Protestantism. My own church still serves Communion (at an open table; baptism not required) from a silver chalice donated in 1701 by William Stoughton, a parishioner who was also the chief justice of the Salem witch trials. Today the members of our "earth-centered spirituality covenant group" are some of our most enthusiastic communicants, happy to get the last laugh on the old judge.
[ 15. July 2015, 13:04: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Fausto wrote:
quote:
The (christological, but not necessarily denominational) "Unitarians" are generally Arians or Socinians.
Interestingly, some christological unitarians, with no connection to UUs or other denominational Unitarians, still go by that name.
I can't help but think that this causes a bit of confusion, and that the biblical unitarians are, intentionally or not, piggybacking on the more high-profile reputation of the UUs.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Piggybacking? Not sure what you mean by that.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Piggybacking? Not sure what you mean by that.
Well, for example, if I've heard of the UUs, maybe by driving past a UU church or reading that Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian(debatable, but it's a common idea), and I'm curious about the Unitarian view on things, I might go home and do a google on "unitarians", and find the "biblical unitarian" website.
So, at least in that instance, the Biblican Unitarians are kind of getting free traffic from the high-profile of the denominational Unitarians, even though the denominational Unitarians aren't really preaching the same thing at all.
(For the record, when I googled "unitarians", all the top sites seemed to be about UUs or other liberal denominational groups, but when I did "unitarians and the bible", the "Bible Unitarian" site was third from the top.)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
All that said, "unitarian" is a completely logical word to describe some person or group with a non-trinitarian chirstology, so it isn't as if the Bible Unitarians are really misappropriating anything from the UUs.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I suppose.... but (whispers) I don't think the UUs are particularly high profile, myself. In my experience most people say "the who the what?" Rather as they do for my own denomination.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
I would say the evidence points strongly to Jefferson being Unitarian by the end of his life at a minimum. For instance in a letter to Benjamin Waterhouse, 8 January 1825, he writes:
quote:
I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. but the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one Preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, altho I know there are many around me who would become so if once they could hear the question fairly stated.
The modern UUs seem to be well aware of the Hungarian Unitarians whose origin predates them and who still exist and are more Christocentric.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suppose.... but (whispers) I don't think the UUs are particularly high profile, myself. In my experience most people say "the who the what?" Rather as they do for my own denomination.
Well, I'd say that among the general public, the UUs are higher-profile than the Biblical Unitarians, which is the comparison here. Someone with a layperson's understanding of religion would likley have heard of Unitarianism as a liberal denomination before he heard of Unitarianism as a christological concept.
At least, that was my personal experience. I found out about the christological theory while doing research into the denomination, which I think I heard about via posted advertising at my local Safeway.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Interestingly, some christological unitarians, with no connection to UUs or other denominational Unitarians, still go by that name.
AS do the original ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Church_of_Transylvania
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
Re Jefferson: His beliefs were consistent with those of Unitarians of his time, and even more heterodox than many (his friend and political rival John Adams, for example). His antisupernaturalism and emphasis on reason probably predated the general consensus of Unitarian thought by several generations. He attended Joseph Priestly's church when he was in Philadelphia, and he wrote in one letter that "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." Nevertheless, he remained a contributing member of his Anglican/Episcopal parish in Virginia throughout his life.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Interestingly, some christological unitarians, with no connection to UUs or other denominational Unitarians, still go by that name.
AS do the original ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Church_of_Transylvania
Yeah, but they do identify with the UUs and other contemproary liberal denominational Unitarians. According to that wiki page, they are members of the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists, which includes the UUA and the British Unitarians.
Whereas I don't think that Biblical Unitarian site has any connections with groups like that. I'm not exactly sure what, if any, affiliation they do have.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The modern UUs seem to be well aware of the Hungarian Unitarians whose origin predates them and who still exist and are more Christocentric.
The congregation which members of my family are affiliated has a partner relationship with a congregation in Budapest. Some members went on an exchange there several years ago and must have been bemused to hear the Bible read from the pulpit.
My family's congregation do celebrate a ritual of Communion, but it is literally a sharing of something to express community - Water, Flower, and even Chocolate Communion (on [St] Valentine's Day) have been known to happen.
As far as big-U vs little-U unitarianism, the old saw I learned was that "Unitarians used to say we believed in one God and no more. Nowadays we believe in one God - more or less."
[ 16. July 2015, 15:54: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a person has trained alongside students who hold more conventionally 'orthodox' views, and has taken the same exams as they have ...
While I have known some Canadians who have gone south to study at Meadville/Lombard, Starr King, or Harvard, the last ministry candidate from my relatives' congregation attended the same (liberal Catholic Anglican) seminary I now do. When I was considering my options as an undergraduate, I toured a Lutheran seminary, and one of the other prospective students on the tour was a UU lady whose T-shirt was decked out in Goddess insignia.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
As far as big-U vs little-U unitarianism, the old saw I learned was that "Unitarians used to say we believed in one God and no more. Nowadays we believe in one God - more or less."
Adlai Stevenson, who belonged to both Unitarian and Presbyterian churches, once waggishly described Unitarianism as "the belief that there is, at most, one God." But that was when Humanism was at its high point within the denomination and before the environmental movement sparked interest in neo-paganism.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Interestingly, some christological unitarians, with no connection to UUs or other denominational Unitarians, still go by that name.
AS do the original ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Church_of_Transylvania
Yeah, but they do identify with the UUs and other contemproary liberal denominational Unitarians. According to that wiki page, they are members of the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists, which includes the UUA and the British Unitarians.
They have friendly relations, but they are separate denominations and the "international council" has no real function or authority.
The relationship between Hungarian/Transylvanian Unitarians and North American UUs mostly involves occasional cultural exchanges. During the communist era, American and Canadian Unitarians provided a degree of support to the persecuted Unitarians in Romania and Hungary. For example, a co-worker of mine in Toronto was the granddaughter of the Transylvanian Unitarian bishop. Her parents emigrated to Canada after WWII with the assistance of the Unitarian churches in Montreal and Toronto.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
This has been a very interesting discussion for me to observe. During the 1990s I was a member of a task force of UU Christians and "continuing" (non-UCC) Congregationalists investigating the possibility of developing a new hymnal for both groups (which never materialized, alas). I had considerable contact with the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship and with the Council of Christian Churches Within the UUA. The former group consists of individuals, both UU and non-UU, and has several thousand members, I would guess. It meets during the UUA General Assembly, and produces a very fine periodical,The Unitarian Universalist Christian, that addresses theological and ecclesiastical issues of interest to UU Christians. The latter group comprises some 25 UU churches that self-identify as Christian, most of them in New England. There are folk who are involved in both organizations, which almost (but not quite) function as one movement. In addition, there other UU parishes that, as noted above, are "federated" with churches of other denominations; they would consider themselves Christian but are not tied to the Council.
The very christocentric Unitarian Church of Hungary has been mentioned above, but no one has spoken of the Independent (Unitarian) Presbyterians of Ireland and Northern Ireland, who also maintain a decidedly Christian identity. I think both of these groups could be said to be (within their own unique cultural distinctives) Reformed churches with an Arian theology.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
I would add: Some of the "federated" UU churches are curious creatures indeed. Many of these were formed during and after World War I, when many small-town New England churches saw dwindling congregations and were struggling to maintain their buildings plus salaries for their ministers. These federations, which took various forms, were a logical solution. Each local society could continue to function, hold its own treasury, etc., while sharing one or two buildings, uniting women's and youth groups, and sharing a pastor. As a result, some of the configurations that developed were a bit odd, e.g.: Congregational-Methodist-Unitarian (or Universalist), Congregational-Baptist-U, and the strangest one of all, a church in Massachusetts that is Unitarian, Baptist and Quaker(!) [and which has since joined the United Church of Christ as well].
Nothing like covering all your bases!
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Her parents emigrated to Canada after WWII with the assistance of the Unitarian churches in Montreal and Toronto.
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
The very christocentric Unitarian Church of Hungary has been mentioned above, but no one has spoken of the Independent (Unitarian) Presbyterians of Ireland and Northern Ireland, who also maintain a decidedly Christian identity.
The Unitarian Church of Montréal was historically considered relatively traditionalist. It called its first minister from the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and is still legally incorporated as the "Church of the Messiah." The Non-Subscribing Presbyterians, along with the Magyar Unitarians in Hungary and Transylvania are the only ICUU churches not organized on a congregational polity. (Episcopacy seems to have been a feature of Hungarian Protestantism in general: this pdf of a 1922 pamphlet explains that the Hungarian Reformed Church in America chose to align itself with the "Protestant Episcopal Church" because continental Reformed denominations in the US did not have bishops).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sorry to dig up this old thread, but I just stumbled over Emmanuel Church, Boston which is an Episcopal church, but whose first minister was originally a Unitarian, subsequently had ministers who left to become Unitarian ministers and says that it has a unitarian heritage.
So maybe that is evidence of the intermingling of Unitarians and Episcopalians in the Boston area.
I thought others might be interested...
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry to dig up this old thread, but I just stumbled over Emmanuel Church, Boston which is an Episcopal church, but whose first minister was originally a Unitarian, subsequently had ministers who left to become Unitarian ministers and says that it has a unitarian heritage.
So maybe that is evidence of the intermingling of Unitarians and Episcopalians in the Boston area.
I thought others might be interested...
I don't remember if it has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but the very first Unitarian church in Boston was Kings Chapel, a formerly Anglican parish that lost its clergy when they were recalled to London during the Revolution. The congregation called a recent Harvard graduate as their new minister, who accepted the call on the condition that he be allowed to remove the Trinitarian references from the Book of Common Prayer. They still use essentially the same BCP today, and wherever you might ordinarily expect to hear "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", you will instead hear "the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only Wise God" (I Timothy 1:17). If you step inside and look around, you would think you were in St. James's Piccadilly.
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on
:
As a Catholic in the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, I always think most other parishes are overrun with unitarians in chasubles, but that's just me.
I would, however, say that the Diocese of Massachusetts is a famously low-church diocese (with notable exceptions) and quite liberal to boot, so it does run more towards that Unitarian-y, Congregationalist-y feel. Trinity Church, the "principle parish" of the diocese is for all intents and purposes your average middle-of-the-road broad church (with a splendid building), but it's main service is still Morning Prayer with menstrual communion.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
but it's main service is still Morning Prayer with menstrual communion.
Do-whatty?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
but it's main service is still Morning Prayer with menstrual communion.
Do-whatty?
That typo (presumably) could add a wholly new dimension to some peoples' ideas about transubstantiation.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
but it's main service is still Morning Prayer with menstrual communion.
You might, perhaps, find "mensual" to be a slightly less surprising word here.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0