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."
No comments:
Post a Comment