Maybe because its my last journal entry, maybe its the time of day, but this reading, of all them really didn't seem to make any sense to me. I had read it some time ago, around Thanksgiving and I remember thinking then that there didn't seem to be anything in here that would differentiate Unitarian or Universalist settlers from any other type of settler. It doesn't seem that their task was greater or less due to their faith. The same people who didn't get along back east, didn't get along out west.
I'm not sure there was much point to this. If there was anything new or noteworthy, I missed it.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Cassara Ch 8 Universalism Old and New
This chapter is a series of eight documents and Cassara's comments or commentary on each of them.
1. Barnum Why I am A Universalist
This is commented on in another section. The only notable new information here is that in Cassara's notes, we are left to assume that not only was Barnum already famous, he was also influential in the Universalist church.
2. The Social Implications of Universalism
Skinner was the president of Tufts and took the freedom of the soul through reason to be a sign that we must work to bring that same freedom to everyone. The basis of the social gospel for Universalists is clearly a straight line from their theology.
Very interesting piece here on the way YHWH and Baal both reflected the cultures over which they "ruled" with YHWH being the God of democracy and free association, and Baal being the God of commerce. Which would you rather worship?
3. Universalist Social Program of 1917
This is a very socialist sounding program that is economic, social and political and stresses equality and egalitarian.
4. Which Way, L. B. Fisher, 1921
This is a statement about refusing to publish a dogma. Very well written.
Interesting quote:
No human word ever has reached or ever will reach finality of meaning. Each living age always has defined religion in the light of its own experiences, and all ages to come will do the same.
5. Universalists of Today, J v. Schaik, 1925
In an effort to smooth over the theological difference that spanned Universalism and mainline Protetestantism - mostly the absence of Jesus - this piece was written. Obvious in the writing that the author was trying to go back and mend some bridges, as well as in Cassara's observation was that most of what had caused the separation was in the past already, this work just formalized it.
6. Humanist Manifesto
I can certainly see how this would have slid right into what I know of then-current Universalist theology and its application.
I just don't get a lot of their "jumps", like, how do you get from ##1 & 2 to #3. They make it sound like if ##1 & 2 are true, then three, of course is true. And in #7, why is it that just because the first part is true, then the second part has to be true.
I wish these folks were around so that I could talk to them because as many times as I've read this with as much an open mind as I can muster, I feel myself shutting down every time.
7. Clinton Lee Scott Radio Transcriptions
Wow, I don't know what to say about these. These were fantastic. I think they should be read, or better, acted, verbatim as a sermon one day. It is interesting that getting on the radio and saying this was somehow notable. I wonder how many people were listening. I wonder if these radio tapes are still available to hear this in his own voice.
8. Touch Not My Lips
Poem basically evoking God not to bore him with ancient wisdom, but rather to let him follow his own.
1. Barnum Why I am A Universalist
This is commented on in another section. The only notable new information here is that in Cassara's notes, we are left to assume that not only was Barnum already famous, he was also influential in the Universalist church.
2. The Social Implications of Universalism
Skinner was the president of Tufts and took the freedom of the soul through reason to be a sign that we must work to bring that same freedom to everyone. The basis of the social gospel for Universalists is clearly a straight line from their theology.
Very interesting piece here on the way YHWH and Baal both reflected the cultures over which they "ruled" with YHWH being the God of democracy and free association, and Baal being the God of commerce. Which would you rather worship?
3. Universalist Social Program of 1917
This is a very socialist sounding program that is economic, social and political and stresses equality and egalitarian.
4. Which Way, L. B. Fisher, 1921
This is a statement about refusing to publish a dogma. Very well written.
Interesting quote:
No human word ever has reached or ever will reach finality of meaning. Each living age always has defined religion in the light of its own experiences, and all ages to come will do the same.
5. Universalists of Today, J v. Schaik, 1925
In an effort to smooth over the theological difference that spanned Universalism and mainline Protetestantism - mostly the absence of Jesus - this piece was written. Obvious in the writing that the author was trying to go back and mend some bridges, as well as in Cassara's observation was that most of what had caused the separation was in the past already, this work just formalized it.
6. Humanist Manifesto
I can certainly see how this would have slid right into what I know of then-current Universalist theology and its application.
I just don't get a lot of their "jumps", like, how do you get from ##1 & 2 to #3. They make it sound like if ##1 & 2 are true, then three, of course is true. And in #7, why is it that just because the first part is true, then the second part has to be true.
I wish these folks were around so that I could talk to them because as many times as I've read this with as much an open mind as I can muster, I feel myself shutting down every time.
7. Clinton Lee Scott Radio Transcriptions
Wow, I don't know what to say about these. These were fantastic. I think they should be read, or better, acted, verbatim as a sermon one day. It is interesting that getting on the radio and saying this was somehow notable. I wonder how many people were listening. I wonder if these radio tapes are still available to hear this in his own voice.
8. Touch Not My Lips
Poem basically evoking God not to bore him with ancient wisdom, but rather to let him follow his own.
Cassara "Brief" Historical "Sketch"
First point: "brief" historical "sketches" aren't 44 pages long.
He tracks through 14 points, which I outline here:
1. Universalism rose from a time in American history (right before the revolutionary war) that everything was being questioned and was in flux. Rationalism became deism and deism paved the way for universalism.
2. Unitarianism grew along a similar path among the more affluent. [I'm not sure how this cuts right here, but I'll go with it.]
3. The Universalist and the Unitarians were similar in that they were both a compromise along the Christian trajectory somewhere between the desist who had emerged for the enlightenment and the Calvinists.
4. The Universalists were not the only faith group with a concept of universal salvation they see the only group who stressed it. Along with these other groups, there were also other individuals who pave the way for a more openly universalist worldview. The two mentioned here are deBenneville, a FrenchHuguenot doctor and Chauncey, whose primary focus was a move away from Edwards' emotionalism.
5. Is a quick biography of John Murray, who came of a bit here as disorganized and unlucky. Interestingly he knew Benjamin Rush and met John and Abigail Adams on an ocean voyage.
6. Is a quick biography of Elhanan Winchester, who moved around a bit, MA, SC, PA, UK. He shared a pulpit with Priestly in PA. His theology was that man would endure some 50,000 years of hell to clean their souls prior to moving on to heaven. Universalist purgatory.
Also knew and was supported by Benjamin Rush who is turning out to be everywhere.
7. Here, the biography is Ballou, who had been covered in quite some depth in previous readings. New insight here is that he was heavily influenced by Ethan Allan, and that he was informed by having read other universalists such as Winchester and Chauncey.
Interesting quote: Ballou's God is a man-centered God who loves man and seeks to make him happy, as compared to most of Christianty in which a "fallen" man must suffer to glorify God, Ballou's God glorifies himself by making man happy.
8. Is a "biography" of ultra universalism and the squabble that it kicked up when Ballou finally confessed it. The squabble is about worldly accountability in the absences of after-worldly punishment. Interesting pint is that the restorationist camp ended up becoming the dominant theological perspective i none church after Ballou's death.
9. This section goes through what little denominational organization they had. A many of the Universalists came from Baptist churches with congregational polity, the assumption was that this polity would work, and it did, until the denomination grew to over 800,000 members. The lack of a voice made the group crack under its own weight. They started to organize general assemblies of a sort and. Even. Draftees a creed (again Benjamin Rush was involved).
10. The Universalists were socially shunned and ostracized. In some places, they were not allowed to serve on juries. This ostracizing continued to schools and caused traveling students to end up in religious conflicts with their parents. These conflicts incented the group to start religious schools such as Tufts, and newspapers, they apparently had a lot of newspapers.
11. The simultaneous arrival of Darwinsim and biblical historical criticism from Germany had almost no effect on the Universalist because they had always looked at the bible critically using reason. Therefore, unlike other Christian churches whose infallible resource was being proved wrong with movements in science, Universalism had not such threat, and therefore no fundamentalist reaction.
12. This section zips rather haphazardly through missionary work all the way to the consolidation without much coherence.
13. This section walks through the Universalist functioning in the Humanist Movement and the humanist manifesto, which of course, it is not a surprise they had no objections to, as through theology, they were essentially humanists already, or at least not far from it.
14. This quickly summarizes the position of the Universalists at consolidation as being weaker in number and finances.
Great quote:
Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to the question is that we do not stand at all. We move.
He tracks through 14 points, which I outline here:
1. Universalism rose from a time in American history (right before the revolutionary war) that everything was being questioned and was in flux. Rationalism became deism and deism paved the way for universalism.
2. Unitarianism grew along a similar path among the more affluent. [I'm not sure how this cuts right here, but I'll go with it.]
3. The Universalist and the Unitarians were similar in that they were both a compromise along the Christian trajectory somewhere between the desist who had emerged for the enlightenment and the Calvinists.
4. The Universalists were not the only faith group with a concept of universal salvation they see the only group who stressed it. Along with these other groups, there were also other individuals who pave the way for a more openly universalist worldview. The two mentioned here are deBenneville, a FrenchHuguenot doctor and Chauncey, whose primary focus was a move away from Edwards' emotionalism.
5. Is a quick biography of John Murray, who came of a bit here as disorganized and unlucky. Interestingly he knew Benjamin Rush and met John and Abigail Adams on an ocean voyage.
6. Is a quick biography of Elhanan Winchester, who moved around a bit, MA, SC, PA, UK. He shared a pulpit with Priestly in PA. His theology was that man would endure some 50,000 years of hell to clean their souls prior to moving on to heaven. Universalist purgatory.
Also knew and was supported by Benjamin Rush who is turning out to be everywhere.
7. Here, the biography is Ballou, who had been covered in quite some depth in previous readings. New insight here is that he was heavily influenced by Ethan Allan, and that he was informed by having read other universalists such as Winchester and Chauncey.
Interesting quote: Ballou's God is a man-centered God who loves man and seeks to make him happy, as compared to most of Christianty in which a "fallen" man must suffer to glorify God, Ballou's God glorifies himself by making man happy.
8. Is a "biography" of ultra universalism and the squabble that it kicked up when Ballou finally confessed it. The squabble is about worldly accountability in the absences of after-worldly punishment. Interesting pint is that the restorationist camp ended up becoming the dominant theological perspective i none church after Ballou's death.
9. This section goes through what little denominational organization they had. A many of the Universalists came from Baptist churches with congregational polity, the assumption was that this polity would work, and it did, until the denomination grew to over 800,000 members. The lack of a voice made the group crack under its own weight. They started to organize general assemblies of a sort and. Even. Draftees a creed (again Benjamin Rush was involved).
10. The Universalists were socially shunned and ostracized. In some places, they were not allowed to serve on juries. This ostracizing continued to schools and caused traveling students to end up in religious conflicts with their parents. These conflicts incented the group to start religious schools such as Tufts, and newspapers, they apparently had a lot of newspapers.
11. The simultaneous arrival of Darwinsim and biblical historical criticism from Germany had almost no effect on the Universalist because they had always looked at the bible critically using reason. Therefore, unlike other Christian churches whose infallible resource was being proved wrong with movements in science, Universalism had not such threat, and therefore no fundamentalist reaction.
12. This section zips rather haphazardly through missionary work all the way to the consolidation without much coherence.
13. This section walks through the Universalist functioning in the Humanist Movement and the humanist manifesto, which of course, it is not a surprise they had no objections to, as through theology, they were essentially humanists already, or at least not far from it.
14. This quickly summarizes the position of the Universalists at consolidation as being weaker in number and finances.
Great quote:
Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to the question is that we do not stand at all. We move.
Bressler Universalist Movement in America
You know, as I sit here reading this, I am becoming more and more engaged. First, Bressler [pretty sure she is the only she amongst our readings] is an excellent storyteller, engaging and flowing.
Secondly, bringing Ballou and Channning together contextually was wonderful. I was so pleased to get that viewpoint of the two great men.
Third, the parts on Edwards that illustrate the wedge between Ballou and Channing are great. I took church history classes at an evangelical seminary. I knew going in that, amongst other characters, this Edwards guy was one who I as a liberal had to be on the lookout for. When we got to his part, I guessed that it must have been due to his presentation or style because in theology or doctrine, he actually came across as reasonable. I just assumed that I had been spending too much time around these evangelicals! Turns out, maybe my first sense was not that far off! I can see how liberal seminarians can prefer Channing's sensibility over Ballou's though.
Other readings made it seem that nothing was really going on with Universalists. I was glad to read of their discussions (squabbles) about restoration and that they had a newspaper and that they engaged the Transcendentislts.
I think, of all the people we are learning about here, the one who I wish I could have met and talked with is Ballou.
Little revelation: Channing and the elite Unitarians didn't latch onto universal salvation in practice due to its leveling characteristics and the fact that it was too close tot the Awakening's Calvinism!
Interesting quotes:
Appealing to those who strained under the strictures of traditional Calvinism, Universalism was a faith that sought to reconcile popular rationalist stirring with a fervent pietism.
The doctrine of universal salvation was God's way of influencing human affections and turning naturally self-centered human beings to the love of God and the greater creation.
Secondly, bringing Ballou and Channning together contextually was wonderful. I was so pleased to get that viewpoint of the two great men.
Third, the parts on Edwards that illustrate the wedge between Ballou and Channing are great. I took church history classes at an evangelical seminary. I knew going in that, amongst other characters, this Edwards guy was one who I as a liberal had to be on the lookout for. When we got to his part, I guessed that it must have been due to his presentation or style because in theology or doctrine, he actually came across as reasonable. I just assumed that I had been spending too much time around these evangelicals! Turns out, maybe my first sense was not that far off! I can see how liberal seminarians can prefer Channing's sensibility over Ballou's though.
Other readings made it seem that nothing was really going on with Universalists. I was glad to read of their discussions (squabbles) about restoration and that they had a newspaper and that they engaged the Transcendentislts.
I think, of all the people we are learning about here, the one who I wish I could have met and talked with is Ballou.
Little revelation: Channing and the elite Unitarians didn't latch onto universal salvation in practice due to its leveling characteristics and the fact that it was too close tot the Awakening's Calvinism!
Interesting quotes:
Appealing to those who strained under the strictures of traditional Calvinism, Universalism was a faith that sought to reconcile popular rationalist stirring with a fervent pietism.
The doctrine of universal salvation was God's way of influencing human affections and turning naturally self-centered human beings to the love of God and the greater creation.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Lavan Unitarians in India
This piece is rather surprising to me as it is much longer than I would have expected, based in what I have heard about Unitarian missionary work in India (or anywhere for that matter). It started out by giving me a chuckle when it notes up front that Unitarian influence in India was minor. I chuckle because it would seem that it's influence in America is minor, and yet it is here that it has its greatest influence. It is hard to imagine less influence than here.
We can sumarize here by saying that the Unitarian mission to India was not exactly Matteo Ricci in China or St. Francis Xavier in Japan.
The whole reading was embarrassing in as much as its length was hardly justified by its content. The only real missionary to speak of was Sunderland who spent a grand total of year there. The rest of it was a synopsis of "interests, correspondence and minute financial support". The success of Wiallim Roberts is played off like somehow Unitarians had more to do with it than patting him on the back and telling him he was doing a good job.
Notable quotes:
Tha Unitarianism should "within its financial limitations, propegate it's form of Christiany." [Wow. Awe inspiring.]
We can sumarize here by saying that the Unitarian mission to India was not exactly Matteo Ricci in China or St. Francis Xavier in Japan.
The whole reading was embarrassing in as much as its length was hardly justified by its content. The only real missionary to speak of was Sunderland who spent a grand total of year there. The rest of it was a synopsis of "interests, correspondence and minute financial support". The success of Wiallim Roberts is played off like somehow Unitarians had more to do with it than patting him on the back and telling him he was doing a good job.
Notable quotes:
Tha Unitarianism should "within its financial limitations, propegate it's form of Christiany." [Wow. Awe inspiring.]
Robinson Ch 12 Modern Age
Can I start off here my making a note on the whole of the Robinson readings that it is amazing to me to what extent we, as a group, will go out of our way to quarrel about things. If we had, through our ages simply devoted half of the time we spent quarreling about (from my perspective) silly things, we would have had a better chance at being the American Manifestion of Religion.
This chapter turns to the quarrel over institional power or lameness, depending on your perspective. It ties together the loose ends of the threads started in previous chapters, winding through the consolidation and all of it requisite squabbling, passing through Weiman and Hartshorne's philosophical theology and ending up at the end, or at least the theological end which is Adam's voluntary association of faith.
I had always found some reason or common sense in Adam's "unity through variety" but after having read all this Robinson, I am feeling now that unity though variety is less a wonderfully though out theological position than it is a self-evident statement of fact. What other option do we have?
This chapter turns to the quarrel over institional power or lameness, depending on your perspective. It ties together the loose ends of the threads started in previous chapters, winding through the consolidation and all of it requisite squabbling, passing through Weiman and Hartshorne's philosophical theology and ending up at the end, or at least the theological end which is Adam's voluntary association of faith.
I had always found some reason or common sense in Adam's "unity through variety" but after having read all this Robinson, I am feeling now that unity though variety is less a wonderfully though out theological position than it is a self-evident statement of fact. What other option do we have?
Robinson Ch 11 The Humanist Debate
The humanist "issue" started with Gannet's "Things Commonly Believed Today Amongst Us" and progressed to reject theism in the voices of Deitrich and Reese, both of whom were read and commented on earlier.
Reese started as a SBC preacher. Wowzers!
Deitrich lost a heresy trial due to his liberalism. Yikes!
I can definitely see how this movement, concerned first and foremost with the welfare of man found a voice at this time and in this faith. It seems to go along well with what was going on at the time and newfound freedom (e.g. distance from Boston) that the west permitted.
The last part of the chapter is a critique of Humanism is a weak objection based on the absence of God and sin supported by people who have more or less been lost to history.
Note on the fellowship movement from page 156.
Reese started as a SBC preacher. Wowzers!
Deitrich lost a heresy trial due to his liberalism. Yikes!
I can definitely see how this movement, concerned first and foremost with the welfare of man found a voice at this time and in this faith. It seems to go along well with what was going on at the time and newfound freedom (e.g. distance from Boston) that the west permitted.
The last part of the chapter is a critique of Humanism is a weak objection based on the absence of God and sin supported by people who have more or less been lost to history.
Note on the fellowship movement from page 156.
Robinson Ch 10 Liberal Religion and Reform
This chapter looks at the contributions of the Unitarians and the Universalists to social justice through three lenses:
1. Universlism's Social Conscious
2. Feminism
3. Social Gospel (and the ethic of individualism)
The chapter opens by portraying the Universalist's lack of dissent amongst its ranks (when compared to the Unitarians) as possibly lackluster, so it was nice to see that they actually had an argument. Funny that both protagonists had the odd surname of Ballou.
Aiden Ballou's social action rallying call came from his theology which can be summed up by saying that "we much not only preach, but live what we have received as truth". Like Hosea, he based his theology in scripture and considered himself Christian.
American feminism found a home in both Unitarianism (through its stress on education and literacy) and Universalism (through its loose structure that permitted for a lot of different interpretations of influence).
American adoption of a social gospel found a home in Francis Greenwood Peabody, whose father was the minister at King's Chapel. While a professor at Harvard, he wrote Jesus Christ and the Social Question, which more or less launched the social gospel. This was very interesting to me as I had previously been under the impression that the social gospel was an evangelical movement. This movement was critical and revolutionary in implementing a tie between ethics and politics (which interestingly was apparently not there, or lacking before!)
The last part of the chapter I found particularly interesting as it credits Clarence Skinner with transforming the theological concept of universal salvation into a working philosophy aimed at people here on this world. This was very intriguing to me because prior to reading this, I was unaware that these two concepts were as separate as they apparently had been. I wonder what Universalism looked like in both worship and lived life to a pre-Skinner congregant. I can definitely see how pre-Skinner universalism provided fertile ground for one whose philosophy (theology) started with "a belief in man".
Meadville refused Olympia Brown in the same way they had almost refused Egbert Brown, because their prospects for ministry were so slight.
Interesting quotes: In the 19th century, theology was more speculative for the Unitarians but more pragmatic for the Universalists.
The rise of an uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism accentuated the moral and ethical implications of economic power….
1. Universlism's Social Conscious
2. Feminism
3. Social Gospel (and the ethic of individualism)
The chapter opens by portraying the Universalist's lack of dissent amongst its ranks (when compared to the Unitarians) as possibly lackluster, so it was nice to see that they actually had an argument. Funny that both protagonists had the odd surname of Ballou.
Aiden Ballou's social action rallying call came from his theology which can be summed up by saying that "we much not only preach, but live what we have received as truth". Like Hosea, he based his theology in scripture and considered himself Christian.
American feminism found a home in both Unitarianism (through its stress on education and literacy) and Universalism (through its loose structure that permitted for a lot of different interpretations of influence).
American adoption of a social gospel found a home in Francis Greenwood Peabody, whose father was the minister at King's Chapel. While a professor at Harvard, he wrote Jesus Christ and the Social Question, which more or less launched the social gospel. This was very interesting to me as I had previously been under the impression that the social gospel was an evangelical movement. This movement was critical and revolutionary in implementing a tie between ethics and politics (which interestingly was apparently not there, or lacking before!)
The last part of the chapter I found particularly interesting as it credits Clarence Skinner with transforming the theological concept of universal salvation into a working philosophy aimed at people here on this world. This was very intriguing to me because prior to reading this, I was unaware that these two concepts were as separate as they apparently had been. I wonder what Universalism looked like in both worship and lived life to a pre-Skinner congregant. I can definitely see how pre-Skinner universalism provided fertile ground for one whose philosophy (theology) started with "a belief in man".
Meadville refused Olympia Brown in the same way they had almost refused Egbert Brown, because their prospects for ministry were so slight.
Interesting quotes: In the 19th century, theology was more speculative for the Unitarians but more pragmatic for the Universalists.
The rise of an uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism accentuated the moral and ethical implications of economic power….
Robinson Ch 9 Free Religion and Theological Radicals
This chapter charts the dissenting view from the then-current desire for a more unified ecclesia of Bellows described in the earlier chapter. These radicals, of course, were by nature individualistic and therefore, split into two groups, one who accepted the influence of intuition, and one that did not.
The Intuition group was basically the Transecendalists, and a new voice emerges, one of Bartol - spirit takes all.
The second group was the Scientific school. This group, I had previously not heard of, nor had I heard of its leader, Francis Ellingwood Abbott, who believed that science was going to replace all other forms of knowledge, so you'd better get ready.
I found this whole discussion to be lifeless and heady and probably a giant waste of a few decades. I'm glad it happened as it forwarded the movement, but I feel bad for the people who wasted their religious lives during this period.
Interesting quotes:
Bartol: "I spell my God with two 'o's and my devil without the 'd'"
Robinson Ch 8 Mid Century (19th Century, that is)
This chapter can be divided into East and West and Wester.
The story of the East is told through the story of Henry Whitney Bellows, who was minister in New York and later president of the AUA. He called for more central power structure - a catholic (small 'c') church - in an effort to evangelize the faith. His call even was not shy about a general creed. He agitated a lot of people, especially the Transcendentalists, who preferred a more individualistic faith. He thought Unitarianism was boring and wanted it to be more and saw a unified collective effort to be the best bet.
He also formed the United States Sanitary Commission to serve as battlefield medical resources for the Northern Army and the first AUA national conference. He wanted the church to rename itself the Liberal Christian Church of America, but he lost that battle.
The story of the West is told through James Freeman Clark, who was minister in Louisville (which apparently at that point was considered "West" of somewhere.)
Wester is Thomas Starr King, who was in San Francisco, the hub of the Pacific church. I was interested to learn that he was taught in part by Ballou, but later moved over to Unitarnianism.
The chapter ends with Freeman-Clark's unitarian belief:
1. The fatherhood of God
2. The brotherhood of Man
3. The leadership of Jesus
4. Salvation by Character
5. The continuity of human development (aka progress upward and forever)
I think you can see here clearly the great grandfather of our current Principles.
Robinson Ch. 1 Summary Overview
With each reading, I am appreciating hearing the same story told again. This is a short walk through the Unitarian and Universalist development.
On the Universalist side from Murray through Ballou's "Ultra Universalism" like a stroll through the cemetery in Charleston.
On the Unitarian side, the stroll is more like a French garden. From Channing through the rag-tag Transcendentalists, the Western humanism, through JLA and the two wars up to the social justice of the 1970's with oddly, not a word about the black empowerment movement that so enveloped my last ten or so waking hours.
No Author: Empowerment
This was tedious reading. I am grateful that I read Morrison-Read before it to get the real flavor. This is written as heartlessly as Morrison-Reed accuses the Unitarians of being.
I will say, that although I appreciated the more detail into the BAC/BAWA controversy, I didn't find anything here that put Unitarianism, Universalism or UU'ism outside of cultural norms for the time. Of course, it reads like a penance, a self-flogging for all the world to see. It served/s (hopefully) as a confession of sins forming a starting off point for new beginnings, not anchored to our, or America's past fear of non-white cultures.
I appreciated Chapters 9 and 10 which served as Monarch notes for the whole work.
The compelling quote for me was the MLK quote about peace being either negative (lack of conflict) or active (justice), with MLK arguing for active peace and my definition being more passive. I have struggled with this in the past, but until reading it in this context, hadn't considered fully the influence of my race on my viewpoint. I still think its a matter of semantics, as I do know the difference between peace and justice, but I am still working through that and this reading has helped.
Essentially regarding institutional management of the BAC/BAWA process, the UUA made commitments it couldn't keep because it was blissfully, at that point, unaware of its financial situation. It made what in retrospect would appear to be the wrong choice, crystalizing a fracture at a time when that fracture had finally resolved to action. The influence of the powerful was white, New Englander and that influence won. Clearly when this happens, both sides are to blame, but emotions were running high on this subject at this time. Integration and assimilation were giving way to true multiculturalism and that pain was ill-timed.
It seemed like it was mismanaged and then sterilized. What ever happened to the BAC? Where did it go - meaning the people? I have heard that Sinkford was part of and then apart from the movement. I wonder if cooler heads could have prevailed on either side or if it was a time for the establishment to drop its defenses and walk its walk.
I did some research on the UUA website and found that we do have offices of Multicultural Growth and Witness and a Social Justice Empowerment Program that although I couldn't tie them directly back to the Commissions recommendations, would surely have had their source at the same spring.
Morrison-Reed Black Pioneers
I am grateful to finally have opportunity to read this work.
I was raised in a very white society. Everyone I knew was from the same socio-economic group (poor, white) and everyone was either Canado-American or just plain American. My first experiences outside of these cultures was in Spain and France, also very white. It is only over the past fifteen years or so that I have come to recognize that other cultures are different, not merely faded or blurry reflections of the culture I knew. That is why I respect non-white Unitarian Universalists because they had to overcome whatever preconceptions they had regarding white culture to be able to engage it through our faith.
For me, the introduction, preface and chapter one flow together. This was an academic work, so it is full of the requisite academic proofs, etc, the majority of these first two sections based on R. Neibuhr's cultural analysis of churches. I am left reflecting on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which earth is described in two words: mostly harmless. This is the crux of the disconnection between what needs to be for an affluent church (freedom of thought, criticism, ect.) and the needs of a church of the oppressed for which freedom is more real and more visceral. We UU's are mostly harmless, and therefore mostly boring or mostly unreal for an oppressed society.
He uses the next two chapters to tell the compelling stories of Brown and McGee and the cast of characters and atmosphere around them and then synthesizes the two stories into one in the next chapter.
He then looks toward the future. Here the most compelling points he has to make are, first the general assumption that more diversity would be good for us. This, I think is a point many of us can intellectually engage, but we may lag behind emotionally but for on the most sincerest of tiers. Next, he poses three options for us to gain the benefit of this integration. His options are
1. Pretend there is no problem. Sing our hymns. [I cringe every time we sing We Shall Overcome"]
2. Wait for the "forces of cultural amalgamation" and eventually blacks will become more socio-economically like us and free to leave the bonds of kinship that keep them in their current religions. [I can certainly associate with this, it wasn't until I left my family that I was able to actually join a non-Catholic church.]
3. Recognize that changing ourselves is good for us and move in that direction.
This third point, he goes into detail about the value of religion not only as intellectual fodder for discussion but also for real, spiritual spring from which true redemption, in this world as well as in the intellectual world can be met.
There is also, finally a good overview of what happened with the BAC/BAWA, something I have been chasing. The one in Premise and the Promise maybe had too much detail and left me wondering what really happened.
Great quotes:
"Denominations represent the accommodation or religion to the caste system" Neibuhr. [This is overstated. Denominations represent the accommodation of religion to society, and society has accommodated itself to the caste system. The way he words it, you're blaming the caste system on religion and although it is complicit, guilt is probably an overstatement.]
"well-intentioned ignorance". [What a great use of three small words.]
"Can a black minister with a liberal religious message succeed in the black community? The answer may be "no". [This is very interesting for him to bring up. It would seem to be the opposite question asked by this book, but it bears witness to maybe why black have not engaged with us.]
"Many [blacks] have not been able to reconcile integration with black autonomy." [This is very relevant. I think the flip side here is that although I can theologically agree with a liberation theology, my agreement is not emotional, but intellectual. As a result, I don't go off and join a black church, even though my theology may not be that different from theirs. As the dominant race/sex combination, I can give up my white maleness at any time because I can always simply claim it back. If being black has gone through the pain of self-determination and self-value, relinquishing that value probably borders on betrayal.]
"The Unitarian church was not integrated because it chose not to be. The church housed ordinary people with grand ideas about themselves, and the denomination was run by men who were no different." [KA POW! Take that! So, how untrue is that today? I don't know, we're pretty myopic on our grandeur and short sighted on our weaknesses still, IMHO.]
"Godless religion was more acceptable than Godly religion preached in the wrong place."
I was raised in a very white society. Everyone I knew was from the same socio-economic group (poor, white) and everyone was either Canado-American or just plain American. My first experiences outside of these cultures was in Spain and France, also very white. It is only over the past fifteen years or so that I have come to recognize that other cultures are different, not merely faded or blurry reflections of the culture I knew. That is why I respect non-white Unitarian Universalists because they had to overcome whatever preconceptions they had regarding white culture to be able to engage it through our faith.
For me, the introduction, preface and chapter one flow together. This was an academic work, so it is full of the requisite academic proofs, etc, the majority of these first two sections based on R. Neibuhr's cultural analysis of churches. I am left reflecting on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which earth is described in two words: mostly harmless. This is the crux of the disconnection between what needs to be for an affluent church (freedom of thought, criticism, ect.) and the needs of a church of the oppressed for which freedom is more real and more visceral. We UU's are mostly harmless, and therefore mostly boring or mostly unreal for an oppressed society.
He uses the next two chapters to tell the compelling stories of Brown and McGee and the cast of characters and atmosphere around them and then synthesizes the two stories into one in the next chapter.
He then looks toward the future. Here the most compelling points he has to make are, first the general assumption that more diversity would be good for us. This, I think is a point many of us can intellectually engage, but we may lag behind emotionally but for on the most sincerest of tiers. Next, he poses three options for us to gain the benefit of this integration. His options are
1. Pretend there is no problem. Sing our hymns. [I cringe every time we sing We Shall Overcome"]
2. Wait for the "forces of cultural amalgamation" and eventually blacks will become more socio-economically like us and free to leave the bonds of kinship that keep them in their current religions. [I can certainly associate with this, it wasn't until I left my family that I was able to actually join a non-Catholic church.]
3. Recognize that changing ourselves is good for us and move in that direction.
This third point, he goes into detail about the value of religion not only as intellectual fodder for discussion but also for real, spiritual spring from which true redemption, in this world as well as in the intellectual world can be met.
There is also, finally a good overview of what happened with the BAC/BAWA, something I have been chasing. The one in Premise and the Promise maybe had too much detail and left me wondering what really happened.
Great quotes:
"Denominations represent the accommodation or religion to the caste system" Neibuhr. [This is overstated. Denominations represent the accommodation of religion to society, and society has accommodated itself to the caste system. The way he words it, you're blaming the caste system on religion and although it is complicit, guilt is probably an overstatement.]
"well-intentioned ignorance". [What a great use of three small words.]
"Can a black minister with a liberal religious message succeed in the black community? The answer may be "no". [This is very interesting for him to bring up. It would seem to be the opposite question asked by this book, but it bears witness to maybe why black have not engaged with us.]
"Many [blacks] have not been able to reconcile integration with black autonomy." [This is very relevant. I think the flip side here is that although I can theologically agree with a liberation theology, my agreement is not emotional, but intellectual. As a result, I don't go off and join a black church, even though my theology may not be that different from theirs. As the dominant race/sex combination, I can give up my white maleness at any time because I can always simply claim it back. If being black has gone through the pain of self-determination and self-value, relinquishing that value probably borders on betrayal.]
"The Unitarian church was not integrated because it chose not to be. The church housed ordinary people with grand ideas about themselves, and the denomination was run by men who were no different." [KA POW! Take that! So, how untrue is that today? I don't know, we're pretty myopic on our grandeur and short sighted on our weaknesses still, IMHO.]
"Godless religion was more acceptable than Godly religion preached in the wrong place."
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Versluis Transcendentalism and Asian Religions
Maybe it was the time of day I read it, but this one gave its lack of confidence away by its length. Nothing so simple need to take so long to communicate. Basically, that with only primary texts, certain Transcendentalists, chiefly Emerson, but also Thoreau and Alcott appropriated a rather basic understanding of eastern religion to accommodate their religious outlook. The work would have been much more compelling had the author chosen to stop proving his point and rather make some judgements about it.
The section on Emerson is tedious. He painstakingly went through all of Emerson's notebooks and most basic conversations to find any shard of linkage to Eastern religions. Although he proved his point that Emerson was clearly theologically a distant relative to some Asian thought, it seems to me that he missed making his point that these religions influenced Emerson, and rather ended up making the point that Emerson seemed to use them as a back-up justification of a part Christian, part Eastern world view that exorcised the ghost of Plato from Christianity's makeup.
The part on Thoreau was much better. He starts it out by highlighting the contradictory views that held toward the Eastern religions, and I was dreading the pages to come as they would have seemed to have been nullified of any value by the section's opening. However, this section goes on to highlight all the times Thoreau integrated these philosophies into his work, going so far as to translate some of them (from French). I found this interesting as the author had put so much value in the introduction to Emerson's affinity for these texts, but in the end, it was Thoreau who did more work with them, and oddly ended up walking away from them.
I wonder if Thoreau was the first to see Jesus as an avatar of Brama? This would seem to me to be a pretty radical thought for the time and would seem to have mad Thoreau's understanding of (what we now call Hinduism) pretty deep, making his walking away more troubling. Thoreau seemed to be less appropriating than understanding, when compared with Emerson. Maybe his walking away was less of an abandonment than it was a sign of a wholistic integration.
The Alcott section starts dubiously, saying that you have to dig into his journals just to get a mention of Eastern scriptures, and it gets worse from there. This section did not move the author's thesis, nor did it help me at all.
Melleville and Hawthorne were Gnostics, seeing a dualist if separation between right and wrong. I'm not sure why they are here. We're the Transcendentalists?
The last is Brownson, who took the middle way between Thoreau and Melville. His position was that Christianity was essentially already lined up with Eastern thought and it had been corrupted or changed when it collided with Western or materialistic thought. Brownson, therefore saw the integration of Eastern thought as appropriation, and unnecessary, paralleling my comment above regarding Emerson.
Of all of this, the early notion of Jesus as an avatar of Brama is the most interesting. This work, as a whole was not compelling.
The section on Emerson is tedious. He painstakingly went through all of Emerson's notebooks and most basic conversations to find any shard of linkage to Eastern religions. Although he proved his point that Emerson was clearly theologically a distant relative to some Asian thought, it seems to me that he missed making his point that these religions influenced Emerson, and rather ended up making the point that Emerson seemed to use them as a back-up justification of a part Christian, part Eastern world view that exorcised the ghost of Plato from Christianity's makeup.
The part on Thoreau was much better. He starts it out by highlighting the contradictory views that held toward the Eastern religions, and I was dreading the pages to come as they would have seemed to have been nullified of any value by the section's opening. However, this section goes on to highlight all the times Thoreau integrated these philosophies into his work, going so far as to translate some of them (from French). I found this interesting as the author had put so much value in the introduction to Emerson's affinity for these texts, but in the end, it was Thoreau who did more work with them, and oddly ended up walking away from them.
I wonder if Thoreau was the first to see Jesus as an avatar of Brama? This would seem to me to be a pretty radical thought for the time and would seem to have mad Thoreau's understanding of (what we now call Hinduism) pretty deep, making his walking away more troubling. Thoreau seemed to be less appropriating than understanding, when compared with Emerson. Maybe his walking away was less of an abandonment than it was a sign of a wholistic integration.
The Alcott section starts dubiously, saying that you have to dig into his journals just to get a mention of Eastern scriptures, and it gets worse from there. This section did not move the author's thesis, nor did it help me at all.
Melleville and Hawthorne were Gnostics, seeing a dualist if separation between right and wrong. I'm not sure why they are here. We're the Transcendentalists?
The last is Brownson, who took the middle way between Thoreau and Melville. His position was that Christianity was essentially already lined up with Eastern thought and it had been corrupted or changed when it collided with Western or materialistic thought. Brownson, therefore saw the integration of Eastern thought as appropriation, and unnecessary, paralleling my comment above regarding Emerson.
Of all of this, the early notion of Jesus as an avatar of Brama is the most interesting. This work, as a whole was not compelling.
Gura American Transcendentalism
One thing I have learned through post-graduate study is never to read a book without first reading the preface and/or the introduction, which is normally a sort of essay summarizing the totality of the book. The book itself (at least for my taste) generally goes into so much detail that the point is buried, lost in the author effort to prove that s/he has done sufficient research as to be able to validate the very simple point(s) made in the preface/introduction. I dispense with a need to validate the author's authority (no pun intended), having full faith in then professor who has chosen the reading for me.
That all said, I'm glad I did. The preface and introduction here cleared a lot up for me regarding Transcendentalism. First, I am embarrassed to be this far through seminary and still not quite not know what it is. Hah! Joke is on me! THEY didn't apparently know what it was. There were even competing (individualistic v. collective) manifestations of it. Reading the introduction, I thought I was reading One Bird, One Stone which is a collection of stories from the American Zen movement of the post-Beat generation. Ah, now I get it. Transecendentalism was the cultural rebirth (or predecessor if you're more linear) of the Beats, the lost Generation, and the Zen's. They even wrote under obvious pseudonyms and bashed themselves to make their point! Thank you, now I get it. Was that so hard?
Chapter 3: This chapter came off as a bit odd, and although I don't think I was consciously anticipating its content, that content did come as a bit of a surprise. The chapter focuses on three people, before reading this, I really didn't know of. Brownson, Ripley and Alcott (Alcott, I had heard of, but through eduction, not so much Unitarianism.) The chapter was titled Trascendentalism Emerges, but it was much more about these three (and to a lesser degree, Emerson) emerging. Brownson eventually left the group and here, the accomplishments seem more to be of all three of these people than of the group. I wonder who was riding on whose coat-tails. Was the group riding on theirs or were they riding on the groups? In other words, was their success somehow attributable or related to their membership in the group, or was the membership in the group a non-core factor. It is hard to tell from this chapter.
Chapter 10: This chapter came across as Transcendentalism 2.0. It talked about the formation of the "Free Religious Association" as more or less the natural evolution of Transcendentalism in the face of what had become a stodgy Unitarianism. This association was formed under premises that seem precursors to our current theological framework.
I did not know about the origins of the Atlantic Monthly, maybe after seminary, I will read it again in a new light. also, I had never heard of Caroline Dall and was moved by her story.
I didn't quite understand the naming of this chapter.
Chapter 11: This chapter is mostly about Frothingham, who seems to have found a way to merge Transcendentalist thought back into the imperial Unitarian church. This was in part due to an evolution in though summarized by one of my favorite quotes: "The sect of Transcendentalism has disappeared because their light has gone everywhere." This is an excellent ending.
I did not know about the origins of the Atlantic Monthly, maybe after seminary, I will read it again in a new light. also, I had never heard of Caroline Dall and was moved by her story.
I didn't quite understand the naming of this chapter.
Chapter 11: This chapter is mostly about Frothingham, who seems to have found a way to merge Transcendentalist thought back into the imperial Unitarian church. This was in part due to an evolution in though summarized by one of my favorite quotes: "The sect of Transcendentalism has disappeared because their light has gone everywhere." This is an excellent ending.
Tucker Prophetic Sisterhood
I actually have less to say about this book than its length would presume. I am grateful, mostly for the introduction, with the rest of the book serving to fill in the gaps.
I suppose I had not considered how exactly we had transitioned from a male-dominated clergy to an evenly balanced clergy of both men and women. Theologically, this makes sense to read here as it a natural progression from Channing, through Emerson and to Parker that softens the domination of imperial religion and makes it more personal. The need for ministers in areas no "civil" person would like to go (e.g.…not New England) created an opportunity for women amongst open-minded westerners who, experiencing life closer to the ground, saw in their daily lives the formality of culture and empire stripped away and were probably more open to things that would not have been considered appropriate in New England. Also, they didn't have any money and the women were willing to work for less than the men, thus allowing them, along with the support of Jenkin Lloyd Jones (someone I think I need to learn more about) for them to prosper.
Part One is biographical and shows the interconnectedness of this sorority of missional ministers.
Part Two is about the notion of the church as extended family and the metaphorical role as female minister as an extension of motherhood. This chapter draws lines connecting people by relationship (marriage and "special relationships" and even through the changes in architecture started by Jones, but engaged by these newer, familial communities.
I read this part with particular interest as one of the things I (possibly romantically) envision about parish ministry is the localness of it. I travel quite a bit for a living, which means that my relationships are not very local. I look forward, if given the opportunity one day, to the localness of pastoral, prophetic and parish work.
Part Three detailed the conflict, which even the smallest dose of prescience could see coming. Of course, it eventually got down to theology because otherwise they would have had to have admitted that it was all about money and authority, both of with Boston did not want to give up and the West had already assumed.
Part Four walks through the post-Parker, post-Christian feminist interpretation and exterpretation of theology that these women lived. Steeped in social gospel, social justice, this is not a surprise and in my experience, our churches which hold a better balance between head, heart, mouth and hands are our stronger churches - strong than those who focus must on head and mouth. Those churches have something to latch onto when times go rough, as it certainly did for these people.
Epilogue This last chapter left me remembering how moved I was at GA one year to hear the plea for the ministerial retirement fund. This is a fund set up to aid ministers who are having financial trouble in retirement. As this women's league aged and through social engineering of Boston (read: men) pushed them with an abrupt "thanks, we got it from here", I considered whether we, as a community treated them as fairly in real life as we would have in academic discourse. To me, it was like when someone tries to open a jar, but can't and then the next person pops it open, it was a joint effort, but the victory goes to the opener.
It is not a testament to our lives to say that we have succeeded, because religion (despite the masculine admonition to the contrary) is not a business in which there are winners and losers, but religion is about the trying, not about the succeeding. The only sure way to fail is to never try, but success is incumbent upon our own efforts not in a vacuum, but in an atmosphere in which multiple contributions to success, some small and unnamable hold up the attempt and give it a head start. Absent that head start, failure after effort is frowned upon, thus diminishing the value of the effort itself. This imposition of economic measurement on religion is one of our greatest failings and here laid bare for the world to witness.
I suppose I had not considered how exactly we had transitioned from a male-dominated clergy to an evenly balanced clergy of both men and women. Theologically, this makes sense to read here as it a natural progression from Channing, through Emerson and to Parker that softens the domination of imperial religion and makes it more personal. The need for ministers in areas no "civil" person would like to go (e.g.…not New England) created an opportunity for women amongst open-minded westerners who, experiencing life closer to the ground, saw in their daily lives the formality of culture and empire stripped away and were probably more open to things that would not have been considered appropriate in New England. Also, they didn't have any money and the women were willing to work for less than the men, thus allowing them, along with the support of Jenkin Lloyd Jones (someone I think I need to learn more about) for them to prosper.
Part One is biographical and shows the interconnectedness of this sorority of missional ministers.
Part Two is about the notion of the church as extended family and the metaphorical role as female minister as an extension of motherhood. This chapter draws lines connecting people by relationship (marriage and "special relationships" and even through the changes in architecture started by Jones, but engaged by these newer, familial communities.
I read this part with particular interest as one of the things I (possibly romantically) envision about parish ministry is the localness of it. I travel quite a bit for a living, which means that my relationships are not very local. I look forward, if given the opportunity one day, to the localness of pastoral, prophetic and parish work.
Part Three detailed the conflict, which even the smallest dose of prescience could see coming. Of course, it eventually got down to theology because otherwise they would have had to have admitted that it was all about money and authority, both of with Boston did not want to give up and the West had already assumed.
Part Four walks through the post-Parker, post-Christian feminist interpretation and exterpretation of theology that these women lived. Steeped in social gospel, social justice, this is not a surprise and in my experience, our churches which hold a better balance between head, heart, mouth and hands are our stronger churches - strong than those who focus must on head and mouth. Those churches have something to latch onto when times go rough, as it certainly did for these people.
Epilogue This last chapter left me remembering how moved I was at GA one year to hear the plea for the ministerial retirement fund. This is a fund set up to aid ministers who are having financial trouble in retirement. As this women's league aged and through social engineering of Boston (read: men) pushed them with an abrupt "thanks, we got it from here", I considered whether we, as a community treated them as fairly in real life as we would have in academic discourse. To me, it was like when someone tries to open a jar, but can't and then the next person pops it open, it was a joint effort, but the victory goes to the opener.
It is not a testament to our lives to say that we have succeeded, because religion (despite the masculine admonition to the contrary) is not a business in which there are winners and losers, but religion is about the trying, not about the succeeding. The only sure way to fail is to never try, but success is incumbent upon our own efforts not in a vacuum, but in an atmosphere in which multiple contributions to success, some small and unnamable hold up the attempt and give it a head start. Absent that head start, failure after effort is frowned upon, thus diminishing the value of the effort itself. This imposition of economic measurement on religion is one of our greatest failings and here laid bare for the world to witness.
Dorrien: Making of American Liberal...
Introduction:
Wonderful overview of where we came from and how we got there, sources, influences and prophetic voices. As someone struggling with the purpose or usefulness of history, this was a God-Send.
As I read this, I grew increasingly frustrated at Meadville for not having it been the first thing we read when encountering the whole historical and historical-theological framework which we are being asked to learn. Cooler minds prevailed and I welcomed it as a way of assembling the rebellious pile of puzzle pieces that I have been given so far in seminary. I am relieved that there is, in fact a picture to be made of them, and that picture is the "third way".
Favorite quote is "Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority". Yay!
PS…if Coleridge (spiritualized Kant's philosophy) was so darn important, why is this the first I'm hearing of it?
Chapter 1:
This is an historical, theological and socio-political walk through the pre-Unitarian and, through Channing, the formalizing of what was to become a Unitarian church. How we got from the exclusionary "not-Calvinist" to the point where liberal religion, which half chose, have was branded "Unitarian" emerged.
I am relieved to see how quickly our historical ancestors departed from the "not-Calvinist, not-Trinitiarian" framework that had been thrust upon them.
I am especially grateful to get to know Channing more as a person than as through his (unnecessarily long) primary sources. Here, he comes alive as someone who grew into his faith to become a reluctant leader of a rag-tag group of people who transitioned from knowing what they're not, to at least acknowledging that they needed to define who they are.
Favorite quote: "To live in the truth or divine spirit of Christ is to be freed from the always-evil desire to dominate any other human being."
Chapter 2:
So, I am not sure here whether this is Unitarianism 2.0 or 1.2, but either way (I'm sure this will make sense later), it is the next step. Channing paved the way for Emerson to make sense and Parker to articulate and live.
Back to Coleridge again. I get lost in the reason/understanding thing, I'm beginning to think that reason for these folks (Kant through Coleridge) is somehow in stark dualistic opposition with experience. I would think rather that they are mutually benefitting from each other, but reason here seems to wander off into Plutonian theoretical abyss for these folks.
The best bits here were about Parker. First was the core/husk analogy for the Permanent and the Transient, with most of what was known of Christianity at that time to be considered husk. This was solidified for me by the voice of its (along with A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion) critics in that it aimed to "dilute Christianity in the great ocean of Absolute Truth. How great is that? Is this a back-handed recognition that Christianity itself had been distilled out of the this great ocean? I believe so! And it acknowledged their viewpoint that a) there was a great ocean of absolute truth, and b) Christianity is somehow apart from that ocean.
I found it very compelling that Parker in the end is more remembered for his social causes (radical anti-slavery) than his religious contributions. He lived his faith. The author then takes the end of this chapter to assemble the testimonies to Parker's influence, bringing a direct line to the Humanist Manifesto and John Dewey.
Favorite quote: Coleridge: "Christianity is not a theory or speculation; but a life. Not a philosophy of life, but life and a living process."
Wonderful overview of where we came from and how we got there, sources, influences and prophetic voices. As someone struggling with the purpose or usefulness of history, this was a God-Send.
As I read this, I grew increasingly frustrated at Meadville for not having it been the first thing we read when encountering the whole historical and historical-theological framework which we are being asked to learn. Cooler minds prevailed and I welcomed it as a way of assembling the rebellious pile of puzzle pieces that I have been given so far in seminary. I am relieved that there is, in fact a picture to be made of them, and that picture is the "third way".
Favorite quote is "Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority". Yay!
PS…if Coleridge (spiritualized Kant's philosophy) was so darn important, why is this the first I'm hearing of it?
Chapter 1:
This is an historical, theological and socio-political walk through the pre-Unitarian and, through Channing, the formalizing of what was to become a Unitarian church. How we got from the exclusionary "not-Calvinist" to the point where liberal religion, which half chose, have was branded "Unitarian" emerged.
I am relieved to see how quickly our historical ancestors departed from the "not-Calvinist, not-Trinitiarian" framework that had been thrust upon them.
I am especially grateful to get to know Channing more as a person than as through his (unnecessarily long) primary sources. Here, he comes alive as someone who grew into his faith to become a reluctant leader of a rag-tag group of people who transitioned from knowing what they're not, to at least acknowledging that they needed to define who they are.
Favorite quote: "To live in the truth or divine spirit of Christ is to be freed from the always-evil desire to dominate any other human being."
Chapter 2:
So, I am not sure here whether this is Unitarianism 2.0 or 1.2, but either way (I'm sure this will make sense later), it is the next step. Channing paved the way for Emerson to make sense and Parker to articulate and live.
Back to Coleridge again. I get lost in the reason/understanding thing, I'm beginning to think that reason for these folks (Kant through Coleridge) is somehow in stark dualistic opposition with experience. I would think rather that they are mutually benefitting from each other, but reason here seems to wander off into Plutonian theoretical abyss for these folks.
The best bits here were about Parker. First was the core/husk analogy for the Permanent and the Transient, with most of what was known of Christianity at that time to be considered husk. This was solidified for me by the voice of its (along with A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion) critics in that it aimed to "dilute Christianity in the great ocean of Absolute Truth. How great is that? Is this a back-handed recognition that Christianity itself had been distilled out of the this great ocean? I believe so! And it acknowledged their viewpoint that a) there was a great ocean of absolute truth, and b) Christianity is somehow apart from that ocean.
I found it very compelling that Parker in the end is more remembered for his social causes (radical anti-slavery) than his religious contributions. He lived his faith. The author then takes the end of this chapter to assemble the testimonies to Parker's influence, bringing a direct line to the Humanist Manifesto and John Dewey.
Favorite quote: Coleridge: "Christianity is not a theory or speculation; but a life. Not a philosophy of life, but life and a living process."
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Lyttle (ch 14) Humanism in the West
This is a church, by church, minister by minister, social action by social action walk through the Western Conference, apparently in an effort to prove that "the creative impulse of free religion had not atrophied". Which of course means that it was close to atrophy, otherwise, why would he have bothered to write this?
Curtis Reese was the secretary, and that's the tie to humanism, but the chapter is more about liberal religion and unitarianism than it seems to be about humanism, short of the references to the social actions taken.
This was an odd read. The first half of it read like a gravestone.
Then, the author describes how Reese moved from the Baptist church to the Unitarian church because he (and later the Conference) had "moved past Christianity and beyond any historic religion". Ok, so this was interesting, but it was another instance of people at that time thinking that what was ancient had less value.
He also mentions how Dietrich, who I just enthusiastically finished reading earlier today transitioned (through excommunication) to Unitarianism, but the picture painted of him here sounded more like the parts of his piece (recently read) that troubled than the ones that excited me.
All of this wraps up in painting a picture of West's humanism (or passive acceptance of it) making East nervous. The release of this discomfort came after time and familiarity in the presidency of Samuel Eliot in 1921-37, who did not stand it its way and later Frederick Eliot who had adopted some of its principles.
Curtis Reese was the secretary, and that's the tie to humanism, but the chapter is more about liberal religion and unitarianism than it seems to be about humanism, short of the references to the social actions taken.
This was an odd read. The first half of it read like a gravestone.
Then, the author describes how Reese moved from the Baptist church to the Unitarian church because he (and later the Conference) had "moved past Christianity and beyond any historic religion". Ok, so this was interesting, but it was another instance of people at that time thinking that what was ancient had less value.
He also mentions how Dietrich, who I just enthusiastically finished reading earlier today transitioned (through excommunication) to Unitarianism, but the picture painted of him here sounded more like the parts of his piece (recently read) that troubled than the ones that excited me.
All of this wraps up in painting a picture of West's humanism (or passive acceptance of it) making East nervous. The release of this discomfort came after time and familiarity in the presidency of Samuel Eliot in 1921-37, who did not stand it its way and later Frederick Eliot who had adopted some of its principles.
Gannett Things Commonly Believed Among Us
From another reading, here I learned that this statement served in a way as a jumping off point for the humanist movement/debate.
For this one, I felt maybe it would be more coherent to comment on the "things" individually rather than collectively:
1. "We believe that to love the Good and to live the Good is the supreme thing in religion;
No objection here.
2. "We hold reason and conscience to be final authorities in matters of religious belief;
Well, reason and conscience can be overrated, but that notwithstanding, whether you try to create some sort of dogma, that will work for some people, for a while and it will create liars and transients out of many others. So, given a choice between pretending to believe what you're told and opening up religion to true experience (scientific, mystical), you've got to go with the reason and conscience.
3. "We honor the Bible and all inspiring scripture, old and new;
No argument here. But this will rub some people the wrong way as the bible is often the weapon or excuse for what is being rejected in #2.
4. "We revere Jesus, and all holy souls that have taught men truth and righteousness and love, as prophets of religion;
No objection here. I think nowadays, some people might object to holding one prophet (Jesus) above others and with some of the pain that dogmatic churches have done, this might be a point that needs some desensitizing.
5. "We believe in the growing nobility of Man; We trust the unfolding Universe as beautiful, beneficent, unchanging Order; to know this order is truth; to obey it is right and liberty and stronger life;
Hmmm. Starts out fine but then gets into "obeying" the "unchanging order". Not sure what that means, but in general if the order is unchanging and knowing it is truth, then how can you disobey it. You can't disobey gravity even though there is a law and an order around it.
6. "We believe that good and evil invariably carry their own recompense, no good thing being failure and no evil thing success; that heaven and hell are states of being; that no evil can befall the good man in either life or death; that all things work together for the victory of the Good;
Alright. you lost me here. Dualism. Right, wrong, cause effect, failure success. We are too small to understand any of that and trying is most often a waste of resources. Heaven and hell are states of being. I'm OK with that.
To me this is really prickly and I think a remnant of Calvinism and the shadow of its rejection that has long since passed out of Unitarianism. Maybe not.
7. "We believe that we ought to join hands and work to make the good things better and the worst good, counting nothing good for self that is not good for all;
Awesome. This is like merging principles 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6. Why did we break them apart?????
8. "We believe that this self-forgetting, loyal life awakes in man the sense of union here and now with things eternal - the sense of deathlessness; and this sense is to us an earnest of the life to come;
Very cool. A theological reason for radical, primal covenanting. Self-forgetting? That might be a little strong. Self-immersing maybe. You're still you.
9. "We worship One-in All -- that life whence suns and starts derive their orbits and the soul of man its Ought, -- that Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, giving us power to become the sons of God, -- that Love with which ours souls commune."
The interconnected web meets divinity. I like it. I'm not a big fan of the web motif, I don't think it paints the metaphor right, but this is very good.
All in all, this must have been seen as fairly progressive for its time because it's fairly progressive now, but I live in South Carolina, so I don't see many progressive things.
For this one, I felt maybe it would be more coherent to comment on the "things" individually rather than collectively:
1. "We believe that to love the Good and to live the Good is the supreme thing in religion;
No objection here.
2. "We hold reason and conscience to be final authorities in matters of religious belief;
Well, reason and conscience can be overrated, but that notwithstanding, whether you try to create some sort of dogma, that will work for some people, for a while and it will create liars and transients out of many others. So, given a choice between pretending to believe what you're told and opening up religion to true experience (scientific, mystical), you've got to go with the reason and conscience.
3. "We honor the Bible and all inspiring scripture, old and new;
No argument here. But this will rub some people the wrong way as the bible is often the weapon or excuse for what is being rejected in #2.
4. "We revere Jesus, and all holy souls that have taught men truth and righteousness and love, as prophets of religion;
No objection here. I think nowadays, some people might object to holding one prophet (Jesus) above others and with some of the pain that dogmatic churches have done, this might be a point that needs some desensitizing.
5. "We believe in the growing nobility of Man; We trust the unfolding Universe as beautiful, beneficent, unchanging Order; to know this order is truth; to obey it is right and liberty and stronger life;
Hmmm. Starts out fine but then gets into "obeying" the "unchanging order". Not sure what that means, but in general if the order is unchanging and knowing it is truth, then how can you disobey it. You can't disobey gravity even though there is a law and an order around it.
6. "We believe that good and evil invariably carry their own recompense, no good thing being failure and no evil thing success; that heaven and hell are states of being; that no evil can befall the good man in either life or death; that all things work together for the victory of the Good;
Alright. you lost me here. Dualism. Right, wrong, cause effect, failure success. We are too small to understand any of that and trying is most often a waste of resources. Heaven and hell are states of being. I'm OK with that.
To me this is really prickly and I think a remnant of Calvinism and the shadow of its rejection that has long since passed out of Unitarianism. Maybe not.
7. "We believe that we ought to join hands and work to make the good things better and the worst good, counting nothing good for self that is not good for all;
Awesome. This is like merging principles 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6. Why did we break them apart?????
8. "We believe that this self-forgetting, loyal life awakes in man the sense of union here and now with things eternal - the sense of deathlessness; and this sense is to us an earnest of the life to come;
Very cool. A theological reason for radical, primal covenanting. Self-forgetting? That might be a little strong. Self-immersing maybe. You're still you.
9. "We worship One-in All -- that life whence suns and starts derive their orbits and the soul of man its Ought, -- that Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, giving us power to become the sons of God, -- that Love with which ours souls commune."
The interconnected web meets divinity. I like it. I'm not a big fan of the web motif, I don't think it paints the metaphor right, but this is very good.
All in all, this must have been seen as fairly progressive for its time because it's fairly progressive now, but I live in South Carolina, so I don't see many progressive things.
Dietrich Unitarianism and Humanism
Wow. I'm under extreme time pressure from work, pressure even to not go to Chicago, so to some extent I have been feeling like my work in this class was for naught. Compounding this, I'm almost entirely apathetic toward history, but Unitarian Universalist history especially due to the rapid changes since the consolidation. We claim so many people as ancestors who I think would not be pleased by our theology, policies and practices, that the name-only ancestry sometimes wears on me.
But all of that lethargy for history went out the window with this reading. First, I have had a self-declared blind spot for non-theists. I didn't get it. I've talked to them, asked them, but their answers are like they're being delivered in another language. I feel like the dog on the Simpsons - especially when I talk to the real no-G/god atheists. I can handle the probably-not-G/god conversations OK, but the no-G/god ones really spin my head around.
And then here comes this guy. And I've had this book on my shelf for years (an anomaly as I don't like collecting or keeping things - I get rid of almost everything) and wanted to get around to reading it. This particular passage was spectacular and if its the only thing that sticks due to the whole work pressure, thing, it was worth all the work and effort.
So, basically, what he's saying is that the difference between theism and humanism is the focus. Basically, theism is putting first our study/knowledge of God and our duty to him. Humanism is putting first our study knowledge of man and our duty toward him. Ok, so that's not what I believe, I'm more both-and. So, using his phrasing, for me, religion is putting first the study of God's relationship with man and man with each other so that we can know our duty to ourselves. Love God and love each other. Different order on the front end, but similar results.
For a while, he rambles on in things that don't seem to matter, or at least they don't matter to me. Call it "old school" attention to cause and effect, expansiveness of science, act. I don't think these make his point, I would have left them out.
Then he gets to the (his?) four tenants of humanism:
1. That man is an end unto himself, not a means to something else (God?)
2. Human life can be improved. By us.
3. The unity of man is a necessity to get #2 done.
4. You must believe that man can do it.
I wander in and out with him on some of the details. He seems to be wanting to say "man instead of God", or that "if God does exist, who cares". I'm not going to get there, I don't think. I prefer man with God, or Man and God in tandem or cooperation, but he ends on a high note. He says that (paraphrasing) that religion will die if it doesn't get more of these humanistic qualities. On that I will agree, but I would just caution that his interpretation and living of other faiths might be jaded. Many of the most top-down, imperial churches in the world are most concerned with humanity. I think you can be a humanist AND a theist. We'd need a new word, but you could.
I wish they'd dated it.
Holt Does Congregational Polity Sanction Vice?
Very interesting talk given at what would appear to be a meeting of at least interested Unitarian Universalists at the 1998 GA.
He asks a great question. Under what circumstances is it ok for the institutional church to encroach upon the sovereignty of the local parish.
Short answer is almost never. He paints the picture of the dysfunction within the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the ordination of women which either is, or isn't, OK, depending on who you ask. The SBC meets so that the congregations can keep the Convention in check. The UUA meets so that the administration can get the input of the congregations.
At the end, he got down to radical issue in which the only response was the throw the whole congregation out. As I sort of saw that coming, I considered the futility of anything but congregational polity in a liberal faith. If theology is variable from person to person, congregation to congregation, then forcing some sort of theology has one of two results, it will either make people leave, or it will make people better liars. I suppose in the case of a radical theology that involves harm or oppression, then leaving is the worst of two evils.
Short answer is almost never. He paints the picture of the dysfunction within the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the ordination of women which either is, or isn't, OK, depending on who you ask. The SBC meets so that the congregations can keep the Convention in check. The UUA meets so that the administration can get the input of the congregations.
At the end, he got down to radical issue in which the only response was the throw the whole congregation out. As I sort of saw that coming, I considered the futility of anything but congregational polity in a liberal faith. If theology is variable from person to person, congregation to congregation, then forcing some sort of theology has one of two results, it will either make people leave, or it will make people better liars. I suppose in the case of a radical theology that involves harm or oppression, then leaving is the worst of two evils.
Reese Humanising Religion
This started out rough, as a sort of three-part humanist manifesto (little h, little m). He differentiates humanism from some unnamed assailant. He has three first points, that what you think is, by nature, and of course, your own and highly personal and not really provable because its based on your own experiences and yours alone and that you can then test your outcomes and if your outcomes are good, then you should be proven valid.
From there, he gives Humanisms three fundamentals, that you must follow the evidence, even if it contradicts your beliefs, that you must think critically about what you believe, a radical viewpoint of freedom and that competent leadership is mandatory, and lastly that cooperation will do better than competition.
For the next few pages, he talks about the humanization of religion. Here I think I am lost in that he is criticizing something that I have no first-hand knowledge of. I think he’s saying that the non-thinking Church of years past needs to go and be replaced by a church with goals in mind that go beyond eschatological (the enhancement of the human estate) but I can’t quite follow him.
So, there are really good parts of it, but this whole thing really rubbed me the wrong way most of the time. It seemed to have a real superiority complex toward “ancient” religion, as though because these folks thought the earth went around the sun, they couldn’t figure anything at all out. Sure, I agree with the premise that a movement in church toward lived theology with intentional outcomes that transcend escatology is a good thing, but to think that you can tell what was happening in ancient church communities based on their ritual is like saying you can know what’s going on your church by reading the order of service.
And the on page 25, he says that there are no higher and lower impulses, even though he just spent a lot of time cracking sprirituality and embracing ambiguity.
I can’t say I disagree with his oucome, but something about this rubs me wrong. Humanism is an acknowledged blindspot for me. Maybe it should be an area of inquiry for my final work for this course. I wonder if the agitating attitude I’m reading into this work is something commonly felt by current readers or if its just my impatience.
Raible The Meaning of Ministry for Current Day Liberals
The author here is addressing a group of Unitarian Universalists at the Advance Conference in 1987. I’m not sure if the group is lay, clergy or a mix.
He sees three points of tension. Between clergy and laity, between clergy and in the institutional church and between job/life separation (can I be a minister and still be a person).
To the first one, he suggests changes to the way laity understand the role of clergy, not as simply hired laity, but professionally trained, called not employed individuals.
To the second one, he believes that the UUA should be listened to and worked with to ensure a quality of ministry.
To the third, he suggests greater ministerial collegiatliy and opening up.
I think if you were to fix #1 and #2, #3 might fix itself.
Here is what I was considering while reading this:
My church, having gone through two bad settlements and a mixed interim finally called a non-fellowshipped Methodist minister. He is great. So, I can fault Reverend Raible for making specific recommendations regarding general events, but I can attest that the UUA’s approved ministers can tend to be somewhat self-confident.
Regarding the separation of personal life. Since I started this treck a few years ago, I have considered that I should wear a collar if I ever am called to a church or public ministry. I think this is a message that addresses #1 and #3 above.
Wright Universalist Polity (89-99)
This piece was good to read again because I believe I had forgotten, if not never really understood how Universalist and Unitarian polity emerged separately.
The Universalists were looking for more doctrinal authority or uniformity among them. I think this stems from the abuse they took at the hands of the Calvinists, their theological antithesis. Whereas the Unitarians were more heady and theoretical, the Universalists were more practical, what with salvation being at least to some degree, expos facto.
They organized more top-down, more presbyterian than episcopal, but my sense from the reading that the leaders at least to some degree would have preferred more authority. They actually had a heresy trial! I think that spooked them because shortly thereafter, their assembly allowed individual churches to have their own statement of faith, as long as it didn't contradict the primary, which left them in a mess of presbyterian administration, but congregational authority.
The Universalists were looking for more doctrinal authority or uniformity among them. I think this stems from the abuse they took at the hands of the Calvinists, their theological antithesis. Whereas the Unitarians were more heady and theoretical, the Universalists were more practical, what with salvation being at least to some degree, expos facto.
They organized more top-down, more presbyterian than episcopal, but my sense from the reading that the leaders at least to some degree would have preferred more authority. They actually had a heresy trial! I think that spooked them because shortly thereafter, their assembly allowed individual churches to have their own statement of faith, as long as it didn't contradict the primary, which left them in a mess of presbyterian administration, but congregational authority.
Ross The Premise and the Promise
I don't know how to sum up this book in two hundred words. I had to read this in the past for another class and I am still spellbound by the detail in this book that was painted in a broader brush by Wright in the back half his Congregational Polity book.
I'm still not sure I completely understand what was going on with the conflict of the BAC, or whether that was a reflection of larger tensions. That, of course made worse the financial situation that was blamed on Greely with board collusion, but I think was inevitable, growth costs money and all the post-merger work that was going on it seems like everyone wanted it to happen and everyone was happy when it did happen and then aghast at how much it costs. Wanted to eat their cake and have it too.
Then, the explanation of Shelter Rock is a tremendous help. As is the walk through the growth and formalization of the religious education program (would we want a cheap religious education program, too?)
The book ends on a very interesting note regarding the equality question raised again. The equality of LGBT people nearly ripped apart my local church in the 1970's. I am not sure that the european unitarians are as closely related to us theologically as we would hope.
This is a tremendous book, but any short summary does it no justice.
Wright Walking Together Church Doctrine (Ch 1)
This is a talk given at a retreat for ministers in 1983. He addresses 6 questions:
Argues for a mixture of tradition & practical experience. Reason not enough.
2. What constitutes a church?
Here, he has a nice concise answer ‘walking together in mutual fellowship’, covenant/commitment
3. How is the boundary of the church established? (How is membership defined?)
Person decides if congregation suits them or not responsibilities.
4. What leaders, or officers, are essential to the well-being of the church?
Choose own leaders, necessary for well-being
5. Ministers have responsibility to church, what responsibility do they have to fellow ministers?
Ordination (local churches) vs. professional status (MFC)
6. Is a community of churches essential to their well-being?
Communion of churches: mutual
care, consultation, admonition, participation, recommendation & relief and
succor.
He recommends regular and repeated pulpit exchanges so that
congregations come to know more than one minister. Also that each congregation send some type of annual report
to all congregations in their district so we know what is happening in our
fellow churches.
This struck me as a strange address. Obviously, this was a point of concern. I wonder what his audience thought? By the publication and widespread use of the book (this is my third class to use this book), I'm thinking that this was a problem and that the ministers (or at least Meadville) thinks it would be a good idea to address it.
Wright Congregational Polity Denominations (33-89)
With more people, came more controversy, so individuals were no longer forced to go to chuch based on where they lived, they could actually choose a church. This led to differentiation amongst churches and room for a strong profession of faith.
Calvinism was soon the target and religion was litigated in the public sector for domination. This led to antagonistic relationships between the "liberals" and the "orthodox" (two words I just so love!)
Churches became more a reflection of their members than of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. With such independence, soon came the need to band together for efficiency and conventions, (one would imagine the processor of denominations) formed for administrative purposes among the liberals and for ecclesiastical purposes among the orthodox.
Meetings among the churches began to happen and leaders, such as Bellows and Starr-King emerged. These leaders had administrative and ecclesiastical authority, although only administrative authority was actually granted.
The Universalists were slightly more skewed toward ecclesiastical hierarchy, but each church was still local. This effectively lame-duck leadership led to quite a fracture relationship among the Universalists, who had these professions, like the Winchester Profession, which were official, but yet had no enforcement teeth behind them.
From there, distinctions in the local churches became driven in large part to ministers, such as Parker, but it was difficult to see if the following was for the minister or for the church. Wright frames the creed/false creed argument that passed and both ended up in different places, one wanting a more concrete profession of faith and one not. But each on their own, through consensus began to come together as coherent religious groups.
Calvinism was soon the target and religion was litigated in the public sector for domination. This led to antagonistic relationships between the "liberals" and the "orthodox" (two words I just so love!)
Churches became more a reflection of their members than of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. With such independence, soon came the need to band together for efficiency and conventions, (one would imagine the processor of denominations) formed for administrative purposes among the liberals and for ecclesiastical purposes among the orthodox.
Meetings among the churches began to happen and leaders, such as Bellows and Starr-King emerged. These leaders had administrative and ecclesiastical authority, although only administrative authority was actually granted.
The Universalists were slightly more skewed toward ecclesiastical hierarchy, but each church was still local. This effectively lame-duck leadership led to quite a fracture relationship among the Universalists, who had these professions, like the Winchester Profession, which were official, but yet had no enforcement teeth behind them.
From there, distinctions in the local churches became driven in large part to ministers, such as Parker, but it was difficult to see if the following was for the minister or for the church. Wright frames the creed/false creed argument that passed and both ended up in different places, one wanting a more concrete profession of faith and one not. But each on their own, through consensus began to come together as coherent religious groups.
Wright Congregational Polity Merger (145-214)
This reading takes us from the time of considering merger, through the bumps and bangs of actually getting the merger done to the present day.
Both the Universalists (UGC) and the Unitarians (AUA) were dispirited, having gone through the depression with little life.
Prior "dating" did not work as the AUA was the "stronger and more stubborn" of the two and the UGC got lost in the professional staff. So, they created the rise-above position of moderator to ensure that professional staff did not overtake either.
They worked to ensure some sort of balance with the AUA suggesting a decentralized administration and the UGC suggesting functional management.
After WWII, other initiatives were put into place, specifically the formalization of ordination/fellowshipping for professional ministers, the Church of the Larger Fellowship and the expansion effort called the Fellowship movement. They also had been working for a while on some common things such as hymnals, dual fellowshipped ministers, and mergers in the youth movements.
In 1951, they tried "going steady" by merging operations and administration, everything that didn't involve local churches.
In the actual reorganization, they opted for the "association of congregations" format used by the AUA rather than the more hierarchical system used by the UGC.
Then, after the merger was done, right out of the gate there was controversy as some southern churches needed national "backup", they wanted the Assembly to mandate a statement of integration, which of course, everyone took as creedal, so it failed. There was another controversy over the power of the president (Greeley) which ended poorly and the districts emerged to decentralize "authority". By 1969, there were debt issues due to mismanagement and a racial conflict which goes into some description and I'm not sure I quite have all the truth on.
The book finishes by walking through some of the more minor changes (UU World, tightening of fellowshipping/community ministry rules, etc).
Generally, my impression is that for a welcoming and open religion, we are pretty opinionated and it seems like the more surly, Unitarian factions are dominating. This makes sense to me, but its limitations are sad.
Both the Universalists (UGC) and the Unitarians (AUA) were dispirited, having gone through the depression with little life.
Prior "dating" did not work as the AUA was the "stronger and more stubborn" of the two and the UGC got lost in the professional staff. So, they created the rise-above position of moderator to ensure that professional staff did not overtake either.
They worked to ensure some sort of balance with the AUA suggesting a decentralized administration and the UGC suggesting functional management.
After WWII, other initiatives were put into place, specifically the formalization of ordination/fellowshipping for professional ministers, the Church of the Larger Fellowship and the expansion effort called the Fellowship movement. They also had been working for a while on some common things such as hymnals, dual fellowshipped ministers, and mergers in the youth movements.
In 1951, they tried "going steady" by merging operations and administration, everything that didn't involve local churches.
In the actual reorganization, they opted for the "association of congregations" format used by the AUA rather than the more hierarchical system used by the UGC.
Then, after the merger was done, right out of the gate there was controversy as some southern churches needed national "backup", they wanted the Assembly to mandate a statement of integration, which of course, everyone took as creedal, so it failed. There was another controversy over the power of the president (Greeley) which ended poorly and the districts emerged to decentralize "authority". By 1969, there were debt issues due to mismanagement and a racial conflict which goes into some description and I'm not sure I quite have all the truth on.
The book finishes by walking through some of the more minor changes (UU World, tightening of fellowshipping/community ministry rules, etc).
Generally, my impression is that for a welcoming and open religion, we are pretty opinionated and it seems like the more surly, Unitarian factions are dominating. This makes sense to me, but its limitations are sad.
Holt Ordination Sermon
Congregational ordination and the call to ministry.
This is a short pice delivered as a sermon, oddly, at at ordination, which directly criticizes the association's soon-to-be new policy of allowing congregations to ordain so-called "community" ministers.
The speaker first gives a high-level overview of the evolution of the relationship between the professional ministry and the congregations they serve. In this overview, he rightly seats the power to ordain with each congregation as a recognition of the individual's call to serve (God). He also rightly criticizes the institutionalization that lead to fellowship having primacy over ordination.
Where he goes off the rails a bit is when he makes the jump that this power of fellowshipping over ordination is what is empowering "community ministry". His claim seems to be that congregations would not have any grounds or reason to ordain a community minister. This is puzzling to me. I would hope that if my ministry is so weak that I can't convince a congregation to ordain me in its name to do my work and to share in my work with me, then maybe I should consider whether or not my call is really a religious call.
I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is responding to some cultural trend at the time (1991) that may be foreign to me or possibly foreign to my times. But if his point was the congregations have no place in ordaining community ministers, then I disagree with him.
Howe For Faith and Freedom
This book is by a Unitarian Universalist history professor
and is his attempt to make Unitarian history in Europe accessible. It is largely a condensation of two
much larger works, (2,600 pages between them).
In terms of the book, I especially appreciated the first
chapter which extended from Christ through Luther from the perspective of
Unitarian and Trinitarian conflicts as they occurred and how they were resolved
(if you can call it that).
I also appreciated the author’s opinion of the reason for
the importance of Servetus, something that had previously seemed a little thin
for me. His two theories of
Servetus’ importance were first that they were a seed for what would become
religious tolerance and second, that they caused people to go back and look at
scripture again to see that the “right” answers may not be the “only right
answers”.
I did also appreciate the more detailed look at Socianism,
which previously through other classes had been distilled to “a Unitarian
heresy”.
But, in the end, I find the history of Unitarianism
frustrating. As much work as the
author did on presenting this as a truly religious problem (can you pray to
Christ or is that about the same as praying to ‘dead catholic saints’), the
whole argument regarding the nature of God is silly. When you add in the burnings at the stake, it goes from
silly to a sad statement of the human condition. The only reassurance I can find is that on nearly every
instance of the Unitarian (or interestingly ‘non-trinitarian’) viewpoint being
stuffed out was tied to an economic or power play. For example, when the Socinians were ordered to leave in
four weeks, the people doing the ordering knew darn well that they would not be
able to sell their holdings, or at a minimum they would be selling into a very
depressed market. As cynically low
a viewpoint of the state of humanity as this is, I take solice in the fact that
it is at least not as low a viewpoint as someone who would kill over an
argument regarding characteristics of a divine being whose characteristics should
evade our knowledge.
In all, the Unitiarian/Trinitarian argument is just plain
depressing and I’m glad I live in a period of time where that argument, at
least for now, is not one of public interest.
Cassara Introduction to a Treatise on Atonement
Here the author is extoling the virtues of Ballou’s Treatise
on Atonement. In this work, he
gives a history Ballou and suggest that Ballou’s emergence was cause by, rather
than the cause of the revitalism of Universalism that had started with Murray,
deBenneville, Winchester and Chauncey.
By the time it got to Ballou, the move was underway to
contradict the claims of salvation of the Calvanists, specifically as they
contradicted Romans 5:18.
The force behind the Treatise and as well behind its
rejection by the more conservative Christians at the time was its faith in the
human spirit, expressed by Jesus in his sacrifice. People, apparently found it hard to believe that they should
not be punished. This emerged from
the application of reason (aka actually reading the bible with an open mind)
that led to rejection of many then-standing doctrines.
Ballou was very good at scriptures in his later years and
used scripture more openly than did other objectors due to reason (Allen). He also wrote this very young (didn’t
know that, actually).
Interestingly, the author posits that originally, the
Treatise may have been meant to contradict a then-foundational book to the
Universalists, written by James Relly and integrated into the teaching of
Murray himself.
For Ballou, God is not ugly, it is beautiful and humans
don’t have only limited free will in that they can’t reject God (makes
sense).
The mop story is great.
He then goes on to explain how Ballou, through time drifted
away from some of the tenents of the Treatise, which all seemed to me to be
minor points that didn’t injure the original logic to a point of needing
further inquiry.
No Author Unitarian and Universalist Faith Affirmations
This is a compilation of different affirmations of faith
enacted, for lack of a better word, at different Unitarian, Universalist (and
Unitarian Universalist) conventions since 1790, at roughly 15 year intervals.
What’s most obvious is the disappearance of God and Jesus
post-merger. I wonder by
looking at these if the merger did more to get God out of us (or to relieve him
of us) then we had intended.
Obviously, the Unitarians and the Universalists merged because they
LOOKED the same. But I’m
considering here that the reason that God disappeared was because once they
started talking about it, they realized that when you scraped off the covering,
they were really, really different underneath – but having gone this far, it
was too late to turn back and the result was the disappearance of God.
Or maybe, it was a sign of something that needed to
happen. How does someone who
believed in the then-standing Universalist Bond of Fellowship just drop from an
all-powerful God with All-Conquering Love all the way to the super-soft 1961
version of the UU principals which sounds more like a social group or NGO than
a religion?
1.
Was this a sign that things had changed in the hearts
and minds of those involved?
2.
Was this a sign that Universalism was OK implicit
rather than explicit mention of God/Jesus/Spirit due to their obvious presence
in the work?
3.
Or was it just a sort of giving up, throwing in the
towel and recognizing that, as they said in Social Principals, that salvation
was gained through works anyway.
The ends justify the means, such as it was.
By reading these, you could make a case for the Christianity
of both U’s up through 1961, after which, either Christianity had changed to
the point where both U’s wanted to distance themselves from it, or the U’s had
changed so much that they no longer considered themselves to be Christian.
Wright Walking Together (Ch 5 & 9)
Chapter 5 is a sermon at an ordination and chapter 9 is a
commencement address at Meadville.
Chapter 5 is an illustration of the conflict of
congregational polity with a unifying body. He gives three examples in which the unifying body attempted
to pass measures which would have impact on the freedom of individual
congregations to act, the first two in membership of people of different races
and the third in the choosing of a minister.
He argues that the answer lies in the fellowship of
congregations, as described in the Cambridge Platform. In this system, the UUA and other
groups of congregations in fellowships (I imagine here he means clusters and
regions) would have both the duty and the right to state their case for or
against, but it is up to the church as a whole to permit or deny.
This whole argument for me is one of the greatest
weaknesses of our faith and permeates from the newcomer walking in the door all
the way to Boston. We are
committed to our own freedom but we fail to recognize that our freedom stops at
our freedom to associate. After
that, it is childish, unhealthy and I would also comment, probably contrary to
the will of God to kick up a fuss on every, single topic of conversation that
comes up.
Our ability to form community, to trust that community
and to enter back into community when trust has been broken is terrible. We are very bad at it, handcuffed by
our own pride our misunderstood concept of freedom. This, if not resolved, will be our downfall.
I felt very stupid reading about the fuss kicked up
about the racial mandates in Chicago in 1963 and Boston in 1965. For racial equality to be stopped
because of implementation is an acknowledgement of our own blindspot for our
own weaknesses: our affluence and
our arrogance.
Chapter 9 was a very weird talk. Its point was pretty short and could have been communicated
much quicker: we need
individualists, passion and pure religion (he used Emerson to illustrate this
point) and we need practical doers (he used Bellows to illustrate this point). We need them both. The weirdness comes in that he took so
long and gave so many backup reasons for his assertion. My guess is that he was delivering it
to a bunch of seminarians who all imagined themselves in the model of Emerson
rather than Bellows. I suppose
that his point was that, in choosing to deliver this message on this day that
he was concerned that too many Emersons and not enough Bellows is bad for us
collectively, and bad for the new ministers individually.
No Author Cambridge Platform
Noteable quotes:
The Congregational church is…united into one body by an holy
Covenant for the public worship of God…and….mutual edification of each other.
Each church is a socity of itself, having officers of their
own which had not the charge of others, virtues of their own for which others
are not praised and corruptions of their own for which others are not blamed.
This is a document which defines church governance through
the lense of theologocial perspectives.
As in the Browne reading there is a separation between
pastors and teachers and a definite separation between the officers, elders,
flock and pastors.
You couldn’t just walk into one of these churches, you had
to be permitted. Maybe that’s the
source of the weirdness today when churches announce that “Everyone is
Welcome”.
Children of members are welcomed, but not considered members
until they have professed their own covenant when they come of age. This sounds like the system in place in
Catholic and Episcopalian churches.
There is a great section on communion of churches which recommends
that churches lend a hand to each other when their issues come up in groups
called Synods.
Strong statement on the separation of church governance from
state governance, although strong recommendation that they work well together.
Wilbur History of Unitarianism
I found this reading interesting because in its way, it both
conflicted with and added detail to the Servetus incident as it was taught in
my Church History class. In that
class, Servetus is seen as sort of a guy who got in trouble for writing
something heretical and was dumb enough to actually go to Geneva to talk to Calvin
about it. In Geneva, he became a
pawn between Calvin and the Catholics, so Calvin, of course had to react to
this heresy, which of course meant executing Servetus, because he failed to
repent. This is the only execution
ever ordered by Calvin and he was so fraught with misery about it that he tried
his darndest to have the sentence be carried out by beheading because it was
more humane, but he lost that argument due to the social pressures and had to
consent to execution by fire.
Contrast this with the reading in this story and you have a
doctor whose contributions to science were notable. He wrote this book that was more a political and social criticism
dating back to Nicea and that the real problem was political and anti-Catholic
rather than theological. He had to
work hard to get a publisher and ended up needing to self-publish.
This was no work that he accidentally got in trouble
for. This was an intentional
protest against the organized church which Calvin ended up adjudicating even
though he had tried to pawn it off to the Catholics.
I was enthralled in the drama of the story in that the
actually escaped like James Bond and how funny was it that when he was actually
convicted a “civil” tribunal and that his penalty was $1,000 pounds AND THEN to
be burnt at the stake. Oh, gosh, I
forgot my wallet! Darn.
He’s finally caught because he goes back to Geneva four
months later because he senses a weakness in Calvin and becomes allied with
Calvin’s enemy the Libertines to try to capitalize on that weakness.
In the end, it seemed that Servetus served as a lightning
rod for the arguments between Calvin and the Anabaptists and Calvin and the
Pope. I am happy to walk away
thinking that Calvin would not have killed him just for what he thought about the
nature of God.
Blainton Haunted Heretic
I found this reading interesting because in its way, it both
conflicted with and added detail to the Servetus incident as it was taught in
my Church History class. In that
class, Servetus is seen as sort of a guy who got in trouble for writing
something heretical and was dumb enough to actually go to Geneva to talk to Calvin
about it. In Geneva, he became a
pawn between Calvin and the Catholics, so Calvin, of course had to react to
this heresy, which of course meant executing Servetus, because he failed to
repent. This is the only execution
ever ordered by Calvin and he was so fraught with misery about it that he tried
his darndest to have the sentence be carried out by beheading because it was
more humane, but he lost that argument due to the social pressures and had to
consent to execution by fire.
Contrast this with the reading in this story and you have a
doctor whose contributions to science were notable. He wrote this book that was more a political and social criticism
dating back to Nicea and that the real problem was political and anti-Catholic
rather than theological. He had to
work hard to get a publisher and ended up needing to self-publish.
This was no work that he accidentally got in trouble
for. This was an intentional
protest against the organized church which Calvin ended up adjudicating even
though he had tried to pawn it off to the Catholics.
I was enthralled in the drama of the story in that the
actually escaped like James Bond and how funny was it that when he was actually
convicted a “civil” tribunal and that his penalty was $1,000 pounds AND THEN to
be burnt at the stake. Oh, gosh, I
forgot my wallet! Darn.
He’s finally caught because he goes back to Geneva four
months later because he senses a weakness in Calvin and becomes allied with
Calvin’s enemy the Libertines to try to capitalize on that weakness.
In the end, it seemed that Servetus served as a lightning
rod for the arguments between Calvin and the Anabaptists and Calvin and the
Pope. I am happy to walk away
thinking that Calvin would not have killed him just for what he thought about the
nature of God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)