Unitarianism: Then and Now

Dave Weissbard

UU Church

Rockford, IL

06/10/01

The Reading

from

The History of Unitarianism (Vol II)

Earl Morse Wilbur

 [This history was not intended to] present a history of Unitarianism as a doctrinal system, but to trace the development of three controlling principles that have characterized the movement, namely: complete mental freedom, unrestricted reason, and generous tolerance of differences, in religion. The movement began by calling in question the authority of the creeds that restricted the thinking of [people] in religion. But this step did [not] allow complete freedom to religious thought; for [people] abandoned the authority of the creeds only to substitute that of Scripture as supreme. The Socinians in Poland came to realize that in at least some cases even scripture had to be submitted to the test of reason. . . . In England . . . Unitarians following the leadership of Martineau reluctantly began to abandon scripture as the prime source of religious truth; and the Americans, stimulated by Emerson and Parker, took the same step and the leaders of their thought have now for two generations ceased to seek for proof texts as authority for their religious beliefs. Acceptance of mutual tolerance as a guiding principle in religious thinking has been last to be achieved. Of course it is inevitable that free minds guided by the individual reason and conscience, and influenced by different factors, should often reach differing conclusions, and it is natural that having reached them they should conflict with each other. . . . Now there are but two ways in which such conflicts may be resolved. The parties may abandon the hope of mental freedom and submit to the judgement of another, or else they may waive the effort to think alike as futile, or at all events incidental, while they agree nevertheless in working for the ends they have in common. This is the way of tolerance, in which [people] though disagreeing in incidental matters, allow each other equal liberty of belief, and unite happily for practical ends which they have in common.

            Freedom, reason and tolerance then are not the final goals to be aimed at in religion, but only conditions under which the true ends may best be attained. The ultimate ends proper to a religious movement are two, personal and social; the elevation of personal character, and the perfecting of the social organism, and the success of a religious body may best be judged by the degree to which it attains these ends. Only if the Unitarian movement, true to its principles of freedom, reason and tolerance, goes on through them and finds its fulfillment in helping [people] to live worthily as children of God, and to make their institutions worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven, will its mission be accomplished.

The Sermon

[Col. Styne]

            When I first came to Rockford 23 years ago, one of the things I discovered was that the phone book listed not only our church, but also “The Unitarian Humanist Churches” in bold print. Come to find out, there was an eccentric man of advanced years who had been driven out of Peoria for his eccentricity, and had settled in Rockford. His name was Col. Fred Styne. When Col. Styne first came to town, he came to use the phone here at the church for some long distance calls and was denied the privilege. It made him mad, so in addition to his phone book listings as “America’s Heritage Poet,” “Abortion Rights for American Women,” “The American Heritage Society,” “ The Leif Ericcson Society,” and a couple of others, he had a listing as “The Humanist Unitarian Churches.”

            I called the phone company to complain and they told me their policy was that they did not judge: if someone had a letterhead, they could have a listing. I contacted the Unitarian Universalist Association and its attorney wrote a letter trying to dissuade Colonel Styne, but to no avail. He told me that when people called him looking for a church, he generally referred them to us.

            Colonel Styne died a dozen or more years ago, but his memory came to mind when I was asked during our “Question and Answer” sermon in May about the newly formed “American Unitarian Association.” That has little more meaning than Colonel Styne’s self-proclaimed “churches,” but it has certainly received more press.

[the NEW "American Unitarian Association"]

            Back in April I received a brochure in the mail from people calling themselves “The American Unitarian Association.” This group has two founders, David Burton, a Virginia attorney who has been a UU for “approximately” a decade, and the Dean Fisher, operator of the Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists web site, who has been a UU for all of three years. Chatting on the internet, they came to the conclusion that spirit of the real American Unitarian Association, which consolidated with the Universalist Church of America in 1963 to form the Unitarian Universalist Association, has been violated by what our churches are today. They “know” what real Unitarianism is, and what we’ve got ain’t it. They have, as a result, declared the re-forming of the American Unitarian Association. There are no churches in their Association. They have attracted something like 20 members, out of 250,000 adult Unitarian Universalists, apparently one of whom is a minister - someone who attended a non-UU seminary late in life, was ordained, served an 80 member church for one year, and is no longer in active ministry, but who knows also with authority what our movement should be.

            That such a pimple on the butt of an elephant should receive front page coverage in the Chicago Tribune and a column on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is, to say the least, bizarre. The Chicago Trib story lead was, “Unitarian group splits, wants God in its religion.” The lead to the article on the gospel.com homepage says, “Disgruntled Unitarian-Universalists Poised to Divide Church.” They wish.

            These two guys and a few friends have decided that true Unitarianism can’t tolerate humanists, atheists, or pagans, and that real Unitarians don’t discuss politics. They even find some historical Unitarian sources to support their contention. All they miss is the point. What one might suspect they have not missed the fact that there are a lot of funds that have been bequeathed to the “American Unitarian Association” and if they were to capture the name, they could capture the bucks. They are either ignorant, naive, or greedy.

            It is certainly true that the content of the Unitarian Universalism of 2001 bears little relationship to the content of Unitarian beliefs of two centuries ago. Duhhh. What is consistent is the Unitarian method, the meaning. It seems worthwhile for us to look back in order to better understand the present.

[background]

            We could begin back at the time of Jesus, but let’s be more institutional and begin in the British colonies in America. Who leaves an established order and comes to a “new world.” Generally, people with a tendency to be mavericks. It was true here. Mavericks in both directions: people who were more pious than the average Brit, and those who were less pious. Some came seeking the freedom to practice their own religion; some came for freedom from the common religion. As liberal political ideas came to the fore, so did liberal religious ideas. People who demanded freedom from authoritarian political authorities tended to seek freedom from authoritarian religious authorities.

            The evangelical movement known as the “Great Awakening” came about because there were so many people who were beginning to think for themselves and the orthodox saw it as a threat. The freethinkers didn’t all change their minds after the revival. Many of the leaders of the American Revolution were people who were dissenters from the dominant forms of Christianity. Some advertised it, some were private about their dissent.

            In New England, with the congregational form of government, there was no external authority that could tell a congregation what kind of minister it needed to have. Many of the oldest churches in New England began to choose ministers who preached human perfectability instead of inherent sinfulness, and ministers who spoke of a Jesus who was not a part of God, but was a human son.

            The liberals absolutely thought of themselves as Christians. They just believed that some other Christians had misunderstood parts of the Bible. They believed Jesus was indeed divine and a savior, just that he was not God. They believed in the Bible: they just realized that it was not all of equal validity and they emphasized different parts than their more traditional neighbors did. They did not want to start a new church: they wanted to revitalize the old one. In many ways, they were only continuing the process set in motion by Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation which had dared follow it only so far.

            The problem was, they knew that the creeds of the church imposed views that they believed were unbiblical, that seemed nonsensical to them. They insisted that people should not be forced to submit to creeds and that religion should make sense to intelligent people. That was a more radical step than they anticipated. The conservatives warned them where this might take them, but they thought they knew better.

            This all came to a head in 1805 when Harvard College was looking for a teacher of Bible and there was a conservative candidate and one who was, in the context of the time, a liberal. The liberal, Henry Ware, Sr., was chosen, and the orthodox Christians were furious.

            Jedidiah Morse, an orthodox minister, wrote a pamphlet he called “American Unitarianism” in which he charged the liberal Christians with secretly believing things more radical than they did at the time, and with hiding their true beliefs. Morse called for excluding them from Christian fellowship. He asked, “Shall we have the Boston Religion or the Christian religion?” Liberals responded, “Are you a Christian or a Calvinist?”

            William Ellery Channing, the minister of the Federal Street Church in Boston, became one of the leading spokespersons for the liberals, although he was rather moderate. He acknowledged that some of the liberals believed that Jesus was more than human and had come to save the human race, while others did believe Jesus was truly human. Channing insisted the liberals had not claimed the name Unitarian because they didn’t want to be contentious, only to preach the truth as they saw it.

            In 1819, Channing finally accepted that it had become necessary for the liberals to declare themselves and he delivered a major sermon at the Ordination of Jared Sparks in Baltimore. In his 90 minute sermon, which he called Unitarian Christianity, Channing began by declaring that the Bible was a record of holy revelations, but that not all the parts of it were of equal importance. “Revelation is addressed to us as rational individuals,” which meant that reason must be applied in interpreting scripture.

            He then insisted that by applying reason to the scriptures, it was evident that God was a unity and not a trinity, Jesus was not equal to but subservient to his father. Channing also affirmed that God’s “ justice and mercy make blasphemous the doctrines of human depravity, the perversion of the will, and eternal damnation.” Jesus was not sent to appease God but to serve as a moral example to people, to lead them to the Holy.

            Well, this sermon caused an explosion: in community after community, members of the old churches decided to go with liberal clergy – about a third of the old congregational churches became Unitarian. It was, however, six years before the liberals decided to formally organize. In 1820, Channing invited the formation of the Berry Street Conference, an opportunity for liberal ministers to get together as a means of exchanging ideas. That tradition continues to this day as one of the highlights of ministerial gatherings at our General Assemblies.

[the real AUA]

            But it was 1825 before it was decided to create the American Unitarian Association. There was ambivalence about breaking so blatantly from the rest of the Christian family, but the time had come. The AUA was an organization of individuals, not of churches. There were ministers and lay people who agreed that the purpose of their organization was “to diffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure Christianity.” As Channing had pointed out previously, not all the liberals had the same theology - there was diversity among them, but a common method.

            There was a significant emphasis among the liberals on improving the world. Prison reform, the abolition of capital punishment, promoting public education, welfare of the urban poor, and opposition to slavery were common themes addressed by many, but certainly not all, of the early Unitarian ministers. Many of their sermons were deemed political by those who disagreed with them, less often by those who agreed.

            In the 1830's, some tensions began to arise over the young ministers who identified themselves as “Transcendentalists.” They were less prepared than their older colleagues to allow reason to rule. They insisted that religion was, in the words of Daniel Walker Howe, “properly a matter of intuition, emotion, and faith.” While acknowledging that the Transcendentalists “deplored” definitions, which were what they wanted to “transcend,” Howe points out “they were essentially panetheists, people who saw and felt God everywhere – in all creation and especially in themselves.”

            Ralph Waldo Emerson, briefly the minister at the Second Church in Boston, in his address to the graduating students at Harvard Divinity School in 1838 voiced his view that Unitarianism had frozen, by clinging to the supernatural rationalism of the previous century. He said that true religion came from communing with nature and learning to “love God without mediator or veil.” Emerson challenged the historicity of the miracles and traditional understandings of Jesus. He rocked the Unitarian establishment.

            Another major reformer, related to the Transcendentalists, to whom we have referred in recent weeks, was Theodore Parker whose sermon on “The Transient and Permanent in Christianity” really rocked the boat. He went so far as to suggest that Jesus was not the point, only the messenger. He asserted that what Jesus had said was true, not because Jesus had said it, but because it was true. He said right out, if , “Jesus of Nazareth had never lived, still Christianity would stand firm.” There were Unitarian ministers who refused to have anything more to do with Parker. There was talk of excommunication, but there was no process for that. He was asked to resign from the Boston Association of Ministers, but declined to do so. They didn’t expel him, but they did omit his name from the published membership list.      Howe suggests that the conflict between the Transcendentalists and the orthodox Unitarians was almost as bitter as the struggle between the Unitarians and Calvinists had been.

            William Ellery Channing, who was a part of that establishment, in a letter to James Martineau, the great British Unitarian, expressed his realization that:

Old Unitarianism must undergo important modifications or developments. Thus I have felt for years. . . Its history is singular. It began as a protest against the rejection of reason, - against mental slavery. It pledged itself to progress as its life and end; but it has gradually grown stationary, and now we have a Unitarian Orthodoxy. Perhaps this is not to be wondered at or deplored, for all reforming bodies seem doomed to stop, in order to keep the ground , much or little, which they have gained. They become conservative, and out of them most spring new reformers, to be persecuted generally by the old.

            As I said earlier, the American Unitarian Association was just an organization of individuals. It was not a “denomination.” There were no churches in it, just ministers and lay people. It was, in truth, a very weak structure that was not equal to the challenge of the times.

[in search of theological purity]

             Just after the Civil War, Henry Whitney Bellows, the minister of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York City decided that there was a need for more structure. He called for the creation of a “National Conference of Unitarian Churches” – not to replace the AUA, but to supplement it.

            It was Bellows analysis that there were four major groups within Unitarianism: the Evangelicals, who had a strong belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - even though they insisted Jesus was not God himself. This group wasn’t sure about a new organization because they didn’t want to move any further from mainline Christianity.

            Then, there were the “Older Rationalists,” sometimes called the “Channing Unitarians,” for whom the Biblical accounts of the miracles were the evidence of Jesus’ divine mission. They wanted to spell out clearly the Christian basis of Unitarianism in hopes that the radicals would leave.

            Third came the “Broad Church” group, most of whom did identify themselves as Christians, but who did not want to drive out the radicals because they felt there was a basis for and value in relationship with them. Bellows, who considered himself a member of that “Broad Church” group, said:

We want to describe a large eno’ circle to take in all who really belong with us – and provided one and the fixed leg of the compass is in the heart of Jesus Christ I care little how wide and far the other wanders.

            Fourth came the radicals who were the ones who had come to question whether Christianity was really unique or special among the religions of the world. Some were into Hinduism, others were attracted by what we would call humanism.

            By the time the conference was completed, a constitution was adopted, the preamble and first article of which said:

Whereas, The great opportunities and demands for Christian labor and consecration at this time increase our sense of the obligations of all disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ to prove their faith by self-denial and by devotion of their lives and possessions to the service of God and the building up of the Kingdom of the Son -

Therefore, the Christian churches of the Unitarian faith here assembled united themselves in a common body, to be known as the National Conference of Unitarian Churches, to the end of reorganizing and stimulating the denomination with which they are connected to the largest exertions in the cause of Christian faith and work.

            During the debate, one of the delegates from Brooklyn insisted that there was a need for an “expression of belief” because he was “opposed to uniting with rag, tag, and bobtail.”

[the departure - and return- of the radicals]

            The result of this was the departure of many of the radicals who withdrew and formed what was known as “The Free Religious Association.” Some of them went home and got their churches to drop the name Unitarian.

            Also significant was the Western Unitarian Conference which included many of the churches west of Worcester, Massachusetts: Albany, NY and Minneapolis and SanFrancisco were all west of Boston, you see. In a pamphlet written for the Western Conference’s annual meeting in 1886, The Rev. Jabez Sunderland observed:

Unitarianism in the past has always been Christian. Nobody thinks of doubting that.. . . But, within a dozen years or so, seemingly as the result of the breaking over the West of the free religious wave of the East, there has been a movement here , . . to create a new and different order or Unitarianism in the West . . . [which ] has steadily sought to differentiate itself from the Unitarianism of th East as being something “broader” and “more advanced” than that, has long been averse to the use of the Christian name, and for a few years past has even been more and more distinctly moving off from even a theistic basis, until now it declares openly and strongly that even belief in God must no longer be declared an essential of Unitarianism.

Sunderland was not happy about this and a struggle ensued. It was resolved the follow year by the overwhelming adoption by the Conference of a compromise statement that was called “Things Commonly Believed Among Us, which was not a creed but rather like the present day Unitarian Universalist principles: a statement of fundamentals. These excerpts should communicate the flavor of the document:

We believe that to love the Good and to live the Good is the supreme thing in religion;

We hold reason and conscience to be final authorities in matters of religious belief;

We honor the Bible and all inspiring scripture, old and new;

We revere Jesus and all holy souls that have taught [us] truth and righteousness and love as prophets of religion; . . .

            In 1894, the National Conference also moved to an inclusive consensus statement, designed to bring about the re-inclusion with the more radical elements of Unitarianism:

These churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God and love to man. The Conference recognizes the fact that its constituency is congregational in tradition and polity. Therefore it declares that nothing in this constitution is to be construed as an authoritative test; and we cordially invite to our working fellowship any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy with our spirit and our practical aims.

Ultimately, the American Unitarian Association changed its structure to encompass the strengths of the National Conference which then went out of existence.

[meanwhile, in Rockford . . . ]

            Let me point out, in passing, that the movement of Unitarianism from a clearly Christian basis to a broader more humanistic one was evident in this church during Dr. Kerr’s ministry from 1870 until 1900. Dr, Kerr came here from the Baptist ministry and the orders of service when he began with this congregation differed significantly from those toward the end of his ministry with the focus shifting from theism toward humanism.

[some have not learned from history]

            The two men who have decided to restore the purity of Unitarianism, who want to turn back the clock to 1865, do not seem to comprehend that the walls they want to erect to keep out the “rag, tag, and bobtail” whose beliefs do not meet their standards, have been tried in the past and will not succeed. They want to recreate a “Channing Unitarianism” which even Channing himself renounced in that letter to James Martineau.

            It is a common experience for people to affiliate with their conception of a Unitarian Universalist Church, and then to discover that it isn’t exactly what they expected it to be, which is what they are confident it was meant to be. It is either more traditional or more radical than the new member understood it to be. It’s like marriage where we marry our image of the other person and then discover they aren’t exactly who we thought they were. We either get a quick annulment, or we work toward accommodation.

            Burton and Fisher are clear:

                         We agreed that the dominance of atheists (also   called humanists in UU circles) in many UU congregations had made it difficult for those who believe in God to have a valuable religious experience and that atheists and theists do not have enough in common religiously to be a part of the same “religious” organization, and that the name Unitarian, evoking a belief in God, was inconsistent with atheism. We agreed that the UUA’s recent effort to embrace various polytheistic traditions (including self-described pagans, Wiccans and others practicing “witchcraft”) constituted a further repudiation of the Unitarian monotheist tradition. . . . [and so, we] decided to launch an organization to promote the Unitarian tradition and to honor the American Unitarian heritage.

            I would not suggest to you that Fisher and Burton and the two dozen others who have joined them in their pseudo-association are utterly unique - except in their audacity.

[diversity works]

            It is true indeed that it is difficult to maintain an religious community that is diverse in its understandings of the world. It is conceivable only with deep respect for and acceptance of diversity. It is only through such a commitment that Unitarian Universalism has continued to exist and it is never stable. It is like an unstable radioactive element that is always on the verge of disintegration. No organization like this could ever survive. But it has, in spite of the Burtons and Fishers who throw up their hands in disgust.

            I want to return to and conclude with the words of Earl Morse Wilbur, whose life work was the preparation of a two volume History of Unitarianism, while leading our west coast seminary. In concluding his in depth historical analysis of our movement, Wilbur said:

Of course it is inevitable that free minds guided by the individual reason and conscience, and influenced by different factors, should often reach differing conclusions, and it is natural that having reached them they should conflict with each other. . . . Now there are but two ways in which such conflicts may be resolved. The parties may abandon the hope of mental freedom and submit to the judgement of another, or else they may waive the effort to think alike as futile, or at all events incidental, while they agree nevertheless in working for the ends they have in common. This is the way of tolerance, in which [people] though disagreeing in incidental matters, allow each other equal liberty of belief, and unite happily for practical ends which they have in common.

Freedom, reason and tolerance then are not the final goals to be aimed at in religion, but only conditions under which the true ends may best be attained. The ultimate ends proper to a religious movement are two, personal and social; the elevation of personal character, and the perfecting of the social organism, and the success of a religious body may best be judged by the degree to which it attains these ends. Only if the Unitarian movement, true to its principles of freedom, reason and tolerance, goes on through them and finds its fulfillment in helping [people] to live worthily as children of God, and to make their institutions worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven, will its mission be accomplished.

Wilbur wrote those prophetic words fifty years ago, and they remain true today. May we be equal to the challenge they represent.