Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Luther Elmore
June 23, 2012
Joseph Priestley was a scientist, philosopher, educator, and Unitarian minister. His positions forced him to flee his homeland for America. We will look at his life and contributions to our Unitarian history.
Text of this sermon is not yet available. Click the play button to listen.
Podcasts of this and other sermons are also available for free on iTunes. You can find them here.
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/first-unitarian-universalist/id372427776
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Luther Elmore
March 25, 2012
How Shall We Live? In the first half of the nineteenth century approximately one hundred utopian societies were established across the United States, several by Unitarians and Universalists. We will look at those UU utopian societies and see what lessons they offer us today.
Times of dramatic and rapid change often lead people to question all aspects of their lives. Such a time in the United States was in the early 19th century. As America entered the early 1800s the country began to take its first major steps toward an industrial society. People no longer stayed on the family farm. The first textile mills were established in New England. Improvements in transportation and printing came at a time when hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from Germany and Ireland flooded the country. The old, traditional patterns of life were altered and individuals looked for new ways to live. Some sought community in utopian societies. Over 100 such communities were established in the United States in the years prior to the Civil War. Some were religious, some were secular, some were entirely economic – all sought a better way of life. A few were established by our Unitarian and Universalist forefathers. Their search for a new life in the 1830s and 1840s still speaks to the way we choose to live our life today.
The most well known of these societies related to our UU ancestors was Brook Farm, established by Unitarian minister George Ripley. Ripley was a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and for 15 years the settled minister at Purchase Street Church in Boston. Increasingly attracted to Transcendentalism, in 1840 he attended a Christian Union Convention where participants were encouraged to follow the words of 2 Corinthians 6:17. “Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” Ripley envisioned a Transcendentalist “City of God” and plans for the community were made in the home of Ralph Waldo Emerson. The preamble to his “Articles of Agreement” state the lofty goals of Brook Farm:
To establish the external relations of life on a basis of wisdom and purity; to apply the principles of justice and love to our social organization In accordance with the laws of Divine Providence; to substitute a system of brotherly cooperation for one of selfish competition; to institute an attractive, efficient, and productive system of industry; to diminish the desire of excessive accumulation; to guarantee to each other forever the means of physical support and of spiritual progress; and thus to impart a greater freedom, simplicity, truthfulness, refinement and moral dignity to our mode of life…”
He organized a joint stock company, raised $11,000 in donations and pledges, bought a 200 acre farm eight miles from Boston in West Roxbury and called it “The Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education.” In March of 1841 he gave his final sermon at the Purchase Street Church and he and his wife moved to Brook Farm. They were soon joined by 13 other adults and within a year the community had 70 residents.
Work was chosen and assigned based on personal affinity and skills. Since all were expected to work and all work was equally honored, all were paid the same. Farmers, carpenters, and laborers were paid the same as teachers, poets, and philosophers. Education, social class, age, and gender made no difference. This plot of land had previously been a dairy farm and the soil was rather poor. Nevertheless, they planted a garden. Nathaniel Hawthorne, one of the early residents, seems not to have enjoyed the blend of intellect and labor. He later wrote, “Mr. Ripley put a four-pronged instrument into my hands, which he gave me to understand was called a pitchfork; and he and Mr. Farley being armed with similar weapons we all three commenced a gallant attack upon a heap of manure.” They opened a school where students were taught history, philosophy, literature, music, Greek, Latin, and German. To achieve their goal of balancing manual labor and the intellect, students were required to work two hours a day. Some of Boston’s finest families sent their children there. The school would prove to be Brook Farm’s most successful undertaking.
The intellectual and social life at Brook Farm were stimulating. They had Elizabethan pageants, Shakesperian plays, concerts, operas, costume parties and dances. Works of Beethoven were played on the pianoforte; the choir sang the works of Mozart. The works of Dante were read in Italian. Literary societies and reading groups were popular. One resident later recalled that “the weeds were scratched out of the earth to the music of Tennyson and Browning.” At night Ripley led philosophical discussions, others led star gazing activities. Charles Dana led a group in translating difficult German texts. Many would close their day by joining hands in a circle and repeating “Truth to the cause of God and humanity.” Bronson Alcott and Charles Lane visited Brook Farm in the summer of 1843 and Lane critically wrote that he found “80 or 90 persons playing away their youth and day-time in a miserably joyous frivolous manner.”
From the beginning there had been a shortage of housing, so additional buildings were constructed, increasing their debt. Work also began on a 3 story high main building that would provide more living quarters, reading rooms, assembly hall, and central dining room.
Many of those who had given pledges of support were unable to fulfill their commitment. Struggling financially, in early 1844 the community was reorganized based on the communitarian socialist proposals of French utopian philosopher Charles Fourier. New workers joined Brook Farm, but many of the original Transcendentalist poets and writers left. Various industries were attempted. A sewing department made capes, caps, and collars for sale in Boston stores. Shoe making along with the manufacture of sashes, blinds, pewter lamps and pewter pots generated a little additional revenue. But not enough.
Criticism of Brook Farm began to circulate. Charles Fourier – the utopian writer – had believed that sex should follow the same patterns of work. That is, it should be based on attraction, alternation, and variety. Unfounded rumors of varied and alternating sexual partners began to be spread. Some parents withdrew their children from the school. Some parents opposed the equality or “leveling up” practiced at Brook Farm. One financial backer wrote to Ripley complaining about the presence of what he called “impure children” and called the social mixing of the children an “enormous evil.” In 1845 a student visited relatives in Boston where he was exposed to smallpox. Smallpox soon spread through the community and, although no one died, almost 1/3 of the population was quarantined. More students withdrew from school.
By 1846 about 65 residents and 12 students remained. In March the incomplete and uninsured main building caught fire and burned to the ground in two hours. Within a few months, 30 residents remained and virtually all of the students were gone. The following year bankruptcy proceedings were completed. Brook Farm was no more.
Ripley went to work for Horace Greeley and the New York Tribune. He later published a tremendously successful New American Cyclopedia and paid off all of the debts. Brook Farm lasted from 1841 until 1847, but Ripley’s dream of a Unitarian Transcendentalist utopia had failed.
Shortly after Brook Farm was founded, Adin Ballou established another utopian community, Hopedale. Ballou envisioned a pacifist cooperative community that would incorporate productive farming and industrial activities among a group of committed Christians. Ballou was almost 40 old when he began this enterprise, having served seven years as a Universalist minister and another eleven years in a Unitarian church. He had became a radical reformer, supporting the abolition of slavery, the temperance crusade against alcohol, equal rights for women, and pacifism. He believed in what was labeled “Practical Christianity,” a movement that supported Christian doctrine as closely related to the early, “primitive” church as possible.
In 1841 he organized and became president of “Fraternal Communion Number One,” a society dedicated to Christian living in a community setting. A joint stock company was organized at $50.00 per share, with the promise of a 4% annual return on the investment. The largest investors were Anna and Ebenezer Draper. With the money they raised, they purchased a 600 acre farm just west of Milford, Massachusetts and christened it Hopedale. Members of the Hopedale community agreed to a constitution that stated the following, “I believe in the religion of Jesus Christ as he taught and exemplified it according to the scripture of the New Testament.” They furthermore pledged that they would never assault, injure, slander, envy or hate any human or serve in the armed forces, use liquor, file a suit in court, or vote. Personally, they were committed to never indulge in covetousness, deceit, idleness, or have an unruly tongue. Thirty-two men and women signed this rather strict Christian pledge as they began their life at Hopedale.
In March 1842 twenty-eight individuals – about one-third of whom were children – occupied the Hopedale farm. All 28 moved into the old farm house. They were expected to work 60 hours a week during the summer months, 48 during the winter. And work they did. That first summer they planted 10 acres in potatoes and beans, 4 acres in corn, and 3 acres in other vegetables. They repaired the old buildings, erected a new one, and opened a school for the children. Every two weeks they printed a paper, “The Practical Christian.” They began manufacturing shoes and boots.
On Sundays they had morning and afternoon church services. On Tuesdays they had singing; on Thursdays they had religious discussions and on Saturdays they met to read and discuss public papers and periodicals. Thus, they practiced their Primitive Practical Christianity. Ballou would later write, “I…longed most ardently to see New Testament Christianity actualized.”
Within a few years Hopedale had grown to 170 people and annual business meetings reflected assets of over $50,000. But conflict had crept in. Many of the newer members did not have as firm a commitment to Practical Christianity as the original members. Divergent beliefs such as spiritualism, vegetarianism, and phrenology were practiced by some. Housing had always been inadequate and as new facilities were built, people argued about who would live where. The industries did not produce the revenue expected. As members withdrew, they were paid for their investment and labor, draining Hopedale of valuable financial resources. The end of Ballou’s Christian experiment came in 1856 when the Drapers, the largest investors, withdrew their financial support. The community could no longer be sustained and the Hopedale industries became private companies.
Ballou would write of his experiment. “It will go out to the world and down to coming generations…a laudable but ill-fated experiment entered upon and prosecuted, not to advance any selfish or unworthy interest or course, but rather to show the way of a better, truer life…”
In 1843 Bronson Alcott, the father of writer Louisa May Alcott, established a short-lived vegetarian community called Fruitlands. Prior to this community, Alcott had led a curious life, primarily fashioning himself as a philosopher, educator, and reformer. One historian claims that he was probably the closest personal friend to both Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Born in Connecticut in a large farming family, he had little formal education, but he loved learning.
After traveling to Virginia and failing to secure a job as a teacher, he returned to Connecticut and served as an innovation school master in two townships. He emphasized openness, respect, and self-expression, employing the Socratic method. Educational reformers helped him establish schools in Pennsylvania. Noted Unitarian minister Samuel Joseph May heard of Alcott and secured him a position in Boston. There, Alcott met May’s sister, Abigail, and in 1830 they married. He was attracted to the Unitarian faith of the Mays and for years attended William Ellery Channing’s Federal Street Church. But later, he drifted away from the church.
In 1836 he helped organized the Transcendentalist Club; the first meeting was held in his home. He even provided the name for the Transcendentalist paper, The Dial.
That same year he also published a very controversial book, Conversations on the Gospels. Included in these “Conversations” were discussions of human conception and birth. The book created a storm of protest and many parents withdrew their students from his school. Three years later, when he admitted a young black girl into the school, the remaining students withdrew and the school closed. To make ends meet, he became a day laborer and his wife and young daughters took in sewing. In the meantime, the Alcotts had become vegetarians.
Emerson paid for Alcott to take a trip to England where he met other innovative educators, including Charles Lane. Lane returned with Alcott to Boston and, along with Abigail’s brother Samuel, put up the money to buy a 90 acre farm 30 miles from Boston. During the early summer of 1843, the Alcotts – with their four daughters, age 2 to 12 – along with Lane and his son and five other adults moved to the farm, Fruitlands.
In spite of only having about ten apple trees, they expected to establish an orchard and grow their own food and live according to their radical vegetarian principles. This site had poor soil and was not suitable for a thriving farm. Nevertheless, they spent most of the summer plowing and planting. They planted corn, beans, potatoes, and carrots. They consumed no meat, eggs, milk, butter, coffee, tea, or molasses. The preferred diet was raw fruit and vegetables and water. Later, Alcott would ban the growing of food that grew downward. They felt animals should be as free as humans and so used no wool, honey, manure, or animal labor. In order to not be attracted by money, they tried to grow only as much as they could consume. They had little to worry about, because over production would not be a problem at Fruitlands. Neglecting their farm duties, Alcott and Lane traveled widely to Boston, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut unsuccessfully recruiting additional members. As a result, when the grain needed to be harvested in the fall, Lane and Alcott were away and so Abigail and the girls led the harvest.
The few adults at Fruitlands were a motley crew. One resident insisted on wearing a long beard in an era when all men shaved. Another was a nudist, believing that clothing was spiritually restrictive. He agreed to practice his nudity only at night. One male believed that cursing and profane language elevated the spirit and regularly greeted people with “Good morning, damn you.” One resident – an elderly female – was caught by Lane eating a piece of fish. Defending herself she said, “I only took a little bit of the tail” to which Lane replied, “Yes, but the whole fish had to be tortured and killed.” She packed her bags and left.
By the fall, only the Alcotts and Lanes remained. When Samuel May refused to make an installment payment on the farm in January of 1844, everyone was forced to leave Fruitlands. Alcott’s dream of a radical vegetarian community was over. It had survived less than a year.
Pre-dating these three communities by a few years was the utopian settlemen Of Abner Kneeland, Salubria, Iowa. Kneeland was ordained as a Universalist minister in 1804 and for 25 years served churches in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York. Throughout his ministry, he continued to shift his theological and societal beliefs and came to support the radical beliefs of socialist reformers Robert Owen and Francis Wright. He supported women’s rights, racial equality, divorce, birth control, and interracial marriage. Theologicallly, he drifted away from Christian doctrine and came to define himself as a pantheist. In 1830 he was declared out of fellowship with the Universalists and no longer recognized as a Universalist minister. He established the First Society of Free Enquirers, and preached to crowds of about 2,000 on Sundays. After 3 years, he was challenged by Universalist minister and editor Thomas Whittemore. In response, Kneeland wrote an article which was published in the “Boston Intelligencer.” Kneeland wrote: “Universalists believe in a god which I do not…Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not…Universalists believe in miracles, which I do not…Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead… and eternal life, which I do not.” For those statements over a period of five years he underwent five trials for blasphemy. Ultimately, he was convicted and in June of 1838, at the age of 64, served 60 days in jail. Famously, he was the last man in this country jailed for blasphemy. While in jail, Kneeland made plans to move west and establish a new community of free thinkers. He sought a community where no one would be persecuted for their religious or social beliefs. He chose the newly opened territory of Iowa for his project of free thinkers. By the spring of 1839, less than a year after his release from jail, he was in Iowa. He purchased 230 acres, setting aside 80 acres for himself and offering the rest for sale. Friends and supporters bought 200 more acres. Ten other families soon joined him, “united in desire to free inquiry.” He advertised his new community of Salubria in the Boston Intelligencer, describing the new land in glowing terms. He built a large two-story house, the finest in the county. Now in his mid-60s, he had two more children by his fourth wife – the first three having died.
Although Kneeland was busy in his new, small community, new settlers did not arrive and the land did not sell. He had not taken into consideration the Panic of 1837 – a 7 year long depression – the worse that the United States had faced up to that time. If others had planned to move to Salubria, there was now no money. To make ends meet, Kneeland taught school, sold his livestock and his 200 books.
Local citizens had been tolerant of Kneeland and his free thinkers and a group of nearby Mormons. One local resident regarded the settlers at Salubria as a group of people who just read a lot of books. However, young men from the American Home Missionary Society invaded the area and reported there were a “considerable body of men here…who are in various degrees infected with infidelity.” Of course, they were referring to Kneeland and his free thinkers. As a reflection of their mindset, one Kneeland supported named his son Voltaire Paine Twombley.
Kneeland became active in local politics, was elected county chairman of the local Democratic party, but lost in a bid for the territorial legislature. In 1842, although Kneeland was not on the ticket for any office, the Democrats were attacked by their Whig opponents as the “”infidelity ticket.” The entire slate was defeated.
Two years later at the age of 70, Kneeland suffered a stroke and died. Some of his followers stayed and became absorbed in the area. But the free inquiry community of Salubria was over.
Utopia – “a place of ideal perfection, especially in laws, government, and social conditions.” Ultimately, these four communities tied to our UU forefathers failed. What had they sought? They sought communities of free thinkers, Transcendentalists, vegetarians, and practical Christians. They sought economic stability, religious freedom, and intentional communities of like minded individuals. They sought a better, more meaningful way of life. They sought to set an example for others to follow. Although their experiments in living failed, their quest still resounds with us today. The question remains, how shall we live?
On the one hand, I believe that Brook Farm reminds us to be open to our life- long search for truth and meaning – to associate with those who can give us inspiration, guidance, and encouragement. If we accept the principles of George Ripley’s “Articles of Agreement,” then we would strive to “diminish the desire of excessive accumulations.” Yes, we would learn the boundaries of “enoughness,” focus on what is truly important, and in the words of Ripley achieve “a greater freedom, simplicity, truthfulness, refinement, and moral dignity.” Adin Ballou teaches us to be true to our beliefs and to live life accordingly, wherever it may lead. Bronson Alcott should encourage us to live a life of simplicity, not only in our choices of what we eat, but in how we treat others, animals, and the environment. Abner Kneeland teaches us the value of freedom of speech and thought. For me he also gives encouragement to persevere, no matter what your age, circumstances, or obstacles. Shall we establish our own utopia? The First UU Utopia of Austin, Texas? After all, we have 132 acres of Hill Country land at U Bar U. Perhaps we can raise our own chickens and have farm fresh eggs. Perhaps we can have bee hives and have buckets of honey. We do have church members who can help us in those areas, you know. Perhaps we can raise goats and sell goat cheese to the finest restaurants in Austin. Or perhaps we have already addressed this issue. Our church mission statement states that “We gather in community to nourish souls, transform lives, and do justice.” We will most likely never establish a UU utopia, but perhaps, we can live out our mission, discover meaningful lives, do good works, and have a positive impact on those about us. That in itself would almost be a utopian community.
May it be so.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Luther Elmore
August 14, 2011
Text of this sermon is not available. Click the play button to listen. Audio is also available for free download at iTunes. Keyword: austin uu
Henry David Thoreau is generally recognized as one of us, a UU. He most famously lived for two years at Walden Pond and wrote of his life and observances while there. His quest at Walden and at other times in his life reflect a search for meaning and simplicity that we can apply to our lives today.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Luther Elmore
August 22, 2010
READING
“PHILOSOPHICAL CREED” (Abner Kneeland – 1833)
… I believe that the whole universe is NATURE, and that the word NATURE embraces the whole universe; that GOD and NATURE, so far as we can attach any rational idea to either, are synonymous terms. Hence, I am not an Atheist, but a Pantheist; that is, instead of believing there is no God, I believe that in the abstract, all is God; and that all power that is, is in God, and that there is no power except that which proceeds from God. I believe that there can be no will or intelligence where there is no sense; and no sense where there are no organs of sense; and hence, sense, will and intelligence, is the effect, not the cause of organization. I believe in all that logically results from these premises, whether good, bad or indifferent. Hence, I believe, that God is all in all; and that it is in God we live, move, and have our being; and that the whole duty of man consists in living as long as he can, and in promoting as much happiness as he can while he lives.
SERMON
Freedom of religion is a concept that we in America claim to have achieved and practice. Is that true? Do we have freedom of religion, legally and socially, and do we as a society really believe in it?
In this country we have a long history of religious intolerance. The early colonists in Massachusetts Bay certainly did not believe in freedom of religion. Thousands came to America in the 1630s and 1640s to escape religious restrictions in England, but once they arrived in New England, they did not allow it. Religious doctrine and practices were established and non-conformists were punished.
By 1648 the colony had organized its laws into an alphabetized code called the “Lawes and Liberties.” These Lawes and Liberties specified rights and responsibilities as well as penalties. For instance, Baptists or anyone else who “openly condemn(ed) or oppose(ed) the baptizing of infants” were banished. The law also provided for the banishment of Catholic priests. If a banished priest returned, upon a second conviction he was “put to death.” You could also be banished for denying the immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body, or that mankind was not justified by Jesus’ death and resurrection.
These restrictive laws continued throughout the colonial era into the early years of American independence. In 1782 – with independence not yet won – the state of Massachusetts made it illegal to “blaspheme the holy name of God… his creation, government or final judging of the world…or the Holy Ghost, or…the Holy Word of God.” Punishment could be up to one year in jail.
Of course, the first amendment to the US Constitution adopted in 1791 provided that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Early on the Supreme Court interpreted this amendment literally, that is CONGRESS shall make no law, states – if they chose – could, and regularly did.
Into this world of laws and intolerance, Abner Kneeland was born in 1774. Born in Massachusetts, at about age 21 he moved to Vermont, worked as a carpenter, taught school, and served as a Baptist lay preacher. He came across universalist writings, met Hosea Ballou, and became a universalist. At the age of 31 (1805) Kneeland was ordained as a Universalist minister and called as the settled minister in Langdon, New Hampshire. He became active in the New England Universalist General Convention, serving as its standing clerk and as its treasurer. He also served two years in the New Hampshire Legislature. Along with Hosea Ballou he compiled a universalist hymnal, with Kneeland writing 130 of the 410 songs. (Our hymnal has none of them). He subsequently served churches in Charlestown, Massachusetts, Whitestown, New York, Philadelphia (1818) and in 1825 (1825-1827) Prince Street Church in New York City.
During this time, he was as busy as a bee. He served his churches, published a second hymnal, published a new spelling book (The American Pronouncing Spelling Book) which used phonetics and removed all silent letters, edited a monthly magazine (The Philadelphia Universalist Magazine and Christian Messenger) and completed a translation of the Greek New Testament.
Kneeland’s social thought also began to change and he became in the eyes of some a radical. He met and became supportive of the utopian socialist Robert Owen. Owen was a wealthy Scottish industrialist who had made a fortune in cotton mills, but came to see problems in the newly emerging industrial society. Owen called for small socialist communities where people would combine agricultural and manufacturing enterprises, live in prosperity and harmony, and avoid the ravages of a changing world. He purchased 20,000 acres on the banks of the Wabash River in Indiana and established New Harmony. By 1825 about 800 people were living in his new community. Within 2 years New Harmony had failed, but not Owens’ idea. Across America up to 20 Owenite communities were established, including one on the Red River in Texas. But Owen had caused a stir in addressing the inequalities of wealth and the problems of the early 19th century
A friend and fellow traveler with Owen in his radicalism was Francis “Fanny” Wright. In her early 20s, she visited the United States from Scotland and eventually became a US citizen. Concerned with the situation of slavery in America, in 1825 she established an interracial communal society in Tennessee, named Nashoba, where slaves were purchased and then allowed to work off the purchase price of their freedom. As you might imagine, this interracial community in Tennessee was not well received in the South. Rumors circulated of interracial sex, marriage, and free love at Nashoba. On July 4, 1828, Wright shocked much of America when she publicly spoke at a mixed meeting at New Harmony. Like Owen, Wright backed the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, equal rights for women, public education and cooperative care for all children, and birth control. Wright also attacked capitalism, greed, and religion, becoming known as “the red harlot of infidelity.” Kneeland embraced the radical proposals of Owen and Wright and in 1828 had Fanny Wright speak from his pulpit.
Wright and Owen organized The Association for the Protection of Industry and the Promotion of National Education, a group that sought to establish “state guardianship” of children. Here all children in the country would be fed, clothed, and educated at public expense. Abner Kneeland became president of the association.
Opposition to Kneeland within Universalist churches increased. Many passed resolutions denouncing him as one of their ministers. At the time Universalists themselves were under attack with many conservative Christians fearing their message of universal salvation. After all the thinking went, if there is no punishment in the afterlife for an immoral and licentious life, why should humankind be restrained from living the most immoral life imaginable? This mindset was so pervasive that the state of Connecticut passed a law in 1828 that testimony by Universalists in court was not to be accepted. In May of 1829, having served as a Universalist minister for over 20 years, at the age of 54 Kneeland resigned from the pulpit of his church, never to return to the Universalist fold.
He did not, however, abandon his public career. He moved to Boston and established the First Society of Free Enquiry. The Society of Free Enquiry had Sunday and Wednesday services and both soon drew about 2,000 people. One attendee described the sermons as tending to “ridicule the Christian religion to persuade the congregation that there is no God, no future life, no soul.” Instead of reading from the Bible, Kneeland often read passages from Voltaire or Thomas Paine. On one occasion he read a passage from the Biblical book of Leviticus, passages referring to women’s menstrual cycle and a women being unclean for 7 days. Kneeland screamed in response, “that is not true: women are not unclean anytime. They say this is a good book. I don’t think it is a very good book at all in its attitudes toward women.” He then hurled his Bible down the center aisle where it slammed against the back doors. The Wednesday evening services were festive occasions of singing and dancing. As you might imagine, these antics shocked much of Boston.
Almost immediately upon arriving in Boston Kneeland had also begun to print a newspaper, “The Boston Intelligencer.” He stated that the paper would support the abolition of slavery, the rights of women, public education, and the rights of the laboring classes. Soon it had 2,000 subscribers.
In the second issue Kneeland published a “Marriage Cathecism” which read in part: Q: How long is the marriage vow, covenant, or contract, binding on the parties: A: As long as it exists, let that be longer or shorter. It is morally and virtually binding so long as it is productive of the happiness of the parties immediately concerned and no longer.” A few months later Kneeland wrote that women should have equal rights, even extending to equal pay, stating that “women’s wages should be exactly, per week, per day, or per hour the same as those of men.”
He even supported interracial marriage. In August of 1831 he wrote, “The basic principle of society should be the perfect equality as to rights and privileges, totally regardless of sex, and now I will go one step further, and say, totally regardless of color…What! To marry each other: YES, to marry, if they love or fancy each other.”
In addition, to his radical social positions, in front page headlines, he offered a $1,000 reward to any clergyman who could prove to his satisfaction that Jesus had ever existed and that the four Gospels of the New Testament had truly been written by four men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Kneeland continued to invite controversial individuals to speak from his pulpit. When William Lloyd Garrison – the polarizing abolitionist – moved to Boston to begin printing his abolitionist paper “The Liberator,” the first place he gave a lecture in Boston was from Kneeland’s lectern. Garrison would later write, “It was left for a society of avowed infidels…not by any of the Christian ministers or churches of Boston…to save the city from the shame of sealing all its doors against the slave’s advocate.”
After two years of a very successful but controversial public presence in Boston, in 1833 he published his “Philosophical Creed.” As was read earlier, he stated, “I believe that the whole universe is nature, and that the word nature embraces the whole universe; that God and nature…are synonymous terms. Hence I am not an atheist, but a Pantheist.” Thus, he clearly separated himself from Christians in Boston.
Within a few weeks Universalist minister and editor Thomas Whittemore challenged Kneeland in his magazine “The Trumpet” and Kneeland responded. Kneeland’s letter to Whittemore was published on December 20, 1833, in the “Boston Intelligencer.” Kneeland wrote:
Dear Sir: You observed to me the other day, that people still consider me a Universalist, and said to me that “if you will acknowledge that you are not, I will publish it.” I told you, in substance that in some respects I am still a Universalist; but that in others, I am not… I still hold to universal philanthropy, universal benevolence, and universal charity, in these respects, I am still a Universalist. Neither do I believe in punishment after death; so in this also I agree with the Universalists. But as it respects all other of their religious notions in relation to another world, or a supposed other state of conscious existence, I do not believe in any of them; so that in this respect, I am no more a Universalist that I am an orthodox Christian. As for instance: 1. Universalists believe in a god which I do not; but believe that their god, with all his moral attributes (aside from nature itself,) is nothing more than a chimera of their own imagination. 2. Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not; but believe that whole story concerning him is as much a fable and a fiction as that of the god Promotheus… 3. Universalists believe in miracles, which I do not; but believe that every pretension to them can either be accounted for on natural principles, or else is to be attributed to mere trick and imposture. 4. Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead, in immortality and eternal life, which I do not: but believe that all life is mortal; that death is an eternal extinction of life to the individual who possesses it, and that no individual life is, ever was or ever will be eternal. Hence, as Universalists no longer wish to consider me as belonging to their order, as it relates to a belief in things unseen, I hope the above four articles will be sufficient to distinguish me from them and them from me…
Ultimately, that statement…”Universalists believe in a God which I do not” would lead to a trial with Kneeland being convicted and sentenced to jail for 60 days for blasphemy. He would become the last man sentenced to a jail term in this country for this crime.
Between 1834 and 1838 Abner Kneeland would undergo five separate trials for various charges relating to his blasphemy. One of those charges involved articles he had reprinted in his paper what had previously appeared in the Owens – Wright journal “Free Inquiry.” The most shocking article compared beliefs among various peoples. It said, “A Parisian would be surprised to hear that the Hottentots cut out one of the testicles of every little boy; and a Hottentot would be surprised to hear that the Parisians leave every little boy with two. Neither the Parisian nor the Hottentot is astonished at the practice of the other because he finds it unreasonable, but because he finds it differs from his own. The Frenchman will ask why the Hottentots allow their boy’s but one testicle, but that same Frenchman, though he be too stupid to understand the laws of evidence, or too illiterate to apply them to history, firmly believes that Jesus Christ was begotten without any testicles at all.”
This reference to the testicles of Jesus was considered so shocking by four of the five judges that they would not let the passage even be read in court.
The second item was from Kneeland’s paper and ridiculed contemporary concepts of prayer. That article, said in part: “Think of the prayers that are offered up every Lord’s Day in this country…one is asking for one thing, another for another, one for rain, another for dry weather; one for an east wind, another for a west wind…Only think of it seriously for one minute…and then say whether you think it possible that there is such a prayer-hearing and prayer-answering god…? Superstition may answer in the affirmative; philosophy will answer in the negative.”
The most serious charge by far was his letter to Thomas Whittemore in which he proclaimed that he no longer believed in God.
His defense against these charges should make any trial lawyer proud. As far as the reprinted articles were concerned, his lawyer argued that, as a matter of fact, opponents of Kneeland had reprinted the articles themselves to help build a case against him. So, if the act of publishing the articles was the crime, how had those individuals escaped trial?
Kneeland also argued that he had been out of town when the articles were printed, that they had been printed in error, and that he obviously had nothing to do with their publication because they contained spelling errors and that he would never have allowed that.
Kneeland also defended his letter to Thomas Whittemore. In this case he argued punctuation. His statement to Whittemore was “Universalists believe in a God which I do not.” That is, he did not believe in the SAME god as the Universalists. Had he meant to deny the total existence of God, he would have placed a comma after god, making the sentence read, “Universalists believe in a God, (comma) which I do not.” He also proclaimed that not only did he not believe in the God of the Universalists, neither did the members of the jury. After all, they believed in eternal damnation and punishment and the Universalists did not. Nevertheless, Kneeland was convicted and a series of appeals followed, ending in a fifth trial before the Massachusetts Supreme Court which heard the case in 1836. The Supreme Court handed down its decision two years later. On his 64th birthday Abner Kneeland was called before the court to hear that the previous guilty verdict was upheld and that the accused was sentenced to 60 days in jail.
On June 18, 1838, gray-haired, 64 year old Abner Kneeland began his sentence for blasphemy in the Boston common jail. Released on August 17, he was greeted by a cheering crowd of 300 people. Although his release caused a temporary stir, the huge crowds at his gatherings began to drift away. By the following April he announced in his paper that his free inquiry group was to be disbanded and that his supporters should “just go to some Unitarian meeting, for the sake of being in the fashion.”
Kneeland was headed west. By May he was in Iowa, trying to establish a new free thought community he named Salubria. He purchased 230 acres, built a home, and advertised for like-minded thinkers. Only about 10 other families would move to Salubria and the community did not grow as he had hoped. They were accepted in the surrounding area, with one neighbor merely saying that the inhabitants at the community just read a lot of books. Kneeland taught school briefly, became chair of the Van Buren County Democrats, and ran unsuccessfully for the state legislature. In August of 1844 at the age of 70 Abner Kneeland died.
So, where do we stand 166 years after the death of this Universalist minister and social critic? Have we left behind the mindset and statutes that in 1838 would send a man to jail for 60 days due to his beliefs and statements? In 1961 (Torcaso v Watkins) the US Supreme Court ruled that there can be no religious test for any office. Although I know of no one who has been tried for blasphemy recently, several states still have statutes on their books -although they have no legal standing- that allow discrimination in religious beliefs and practices. These states include Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina and Texas. The North Carolina law is especially of interest to us UUs. It provides “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall DENY the being of Almighty God.” In Asheville, North Carolina, journalist Cecil Bothwell, a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Asheville, was elected to the city council. He was sworn into office using an affirmation that did not include an oath to God or a Bible. Some local citizens tried unsuccessfully to have him removed from office due to the religious clause in the state constitution. The local newspaper in a satirical cartoon referred to Bothwell as our “Village Atheist.” With this unexpected notoriety, Mr. Bothwell now often travels to UU churches throughout the Southeast telling his story.
Even our own state of Texas has an exclusionary clause in the state constitution that has never been removed. It states, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this state; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, PROVIDED he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” Anyone who denies the existence of a supreme being, therefore, cannot hold public office in Texas. However – and this is purely conjectural – if there were a move to amend the Texas Constitution and remove this phrase, what do you think would happen? What type of opposition and rhetoric would emerge? Would a majority of Texas voters remove the requirement to believe in a Supreme Being or would they vote to retain it?
Aside from the legal technicalities of freedom of religion, what about our personal actions? This summer (2010) a Muslim congregation in New York City and a developer plan to build a worship center about two blocks from the Twin Towers where the 9-11 attacks took place. Due to this being an Islamic center, a firestorm of protest has erupted. One has called this proposed building a “sacrilege.” Another has proclaimed that the center is meant to “celebrate” the 9-11 murders. According to syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts (7-22-10), Sarah Palin has called upon moderate Muslims to “refudiate” the idea, although she presumably meant that they should “repudiate” it. When President Obama defended the right of this religious community to built the center, he was attacked. Today, (August 22, 2010) there is a planned public protest in New York City to oppose this center. Some construction workers have announced that they will not work on the job.
Freedom of religion is only one part of a life of tolerance and respect for others. Freedom of religion begins with each of us, in our own hearts, with a lack of arrogance in our own beliefs, and a respect for the beliefs of others. We UUs include that concept in our Seven Principles when we affirm “the right of conscience…in society at large.” That concept is central to who we are.
Today we will have a church-wide discussion of Greg Mortensen’s fine book, Three Cups of Tea. I hope you can attend this discussion which will be led by Religious Education. Toward to end of the book, Mortensen explains why he has spent almost 20 years building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He says, “What motivates me to do this? The answer is simple: When I look into the eyes of the children in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I see my own children’s eyes full of wonder-and I hope that we will each do our part to leave them all a legacy of peace instead of the perpetual cycle of violence, war, terrorism, racism, and bigotry that we adults have yet to conquer.” Freedom of religion, if truly felt in our hearts and applied to our lives, allows more than the right to believe and worship as we choose without being thrown in jail. It also helps combat religious hatred, violence, and bigotry.
Abner Kneeland was a man ahead of his times. He was a bold, but divisive, figure. During his first trial the judge asked his attorney that if the defendant was not an atheist, then what God did he believe in? The attorney retorted, “That is an affair between him and God, and not between him and your honor.” That is the way it should be. Abner Kneeland’s stand for freedom of religion in the 1830s is a message that the world still needs to hear today.
Thank you, Abner Kneeland for your beliefs and for the courage to stand your ground. Thank you for a message that the world needed to hear then and needs to hear today. Thank you for seeing more clearly than most of those about you. Thank you for standing for freedom of religion. May we do the same. Thus, let it be.
PARTING WORDS
We are taught (Matt 5:16) that no one lights a candle and hides it under a basket, but rather places it on a candlestick so that all may see. Let your light so shine that it may show the pathway to those around you. Go in love. Go in peace. Amen
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Luther Elmore
August 30, 2009
PRAYER:
Please join me in an attitude of prayer.
On this day at this hour…we pray to remember. We pause to remember those who have led the way for us. We seek to recall their lives…their words…their deeds. We seek to honor their leadership and inspiration.
This day we also pray to remember those in our own lives who have led us to this place… Those teachers…parents…ministers…writers… loved ones… who have safely guided us to be here…now.
We are thankful for their lives and for the path that has led us here.
Today, Let us remember all who have gone before……
Let us remember our past as we look to our future.
Let us remember……
This is our prayer.
Amen.
READINGS:
# 704 by John Murray
# 592 “The Free Mind” by William Ellery Channing
SERMON: American Roots of Unitarian Universalism: William Ellery Channing and John Murray
It is a joy to be here today at the First Unitarian Univeralist Church of Austin.
We are the church of the long and to some confusing name,
We are Unitarian Universalists and one name is not adequate to describe us. The reason for that is, of course, that we spring from 2 religious traditions – Unitarians and Universalists – each having distinctive beliefs, histories, and organizations. The roots for each of these groups began long ago with discussions about the divinity of Jesus, the nature of God, and the afterlife. In America two of our greatest early forefathers along this pathway were John Murray and William Ellery Channing. John Murray brought his universalist theology to the American colonies in the years immediately prior to the American Revolution. Almost 50 years later William Ellery Channing challenged orthodox beliefs regarding the concept of God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and thereby defined Unitarians.
The direct pathway to modern UUs began with the Protestant Reformation of 1517. Martin Luther, a Catholic monk in Wittenburg, Germany, objected to what he saw as the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church. On October 31, 1517, he posted a list of 95 articles for discussion on his cathedral door. These 95 Theses set off a revolution in theology and church history as great as the revolution set off by Christopher Columbus who had discovered the “New World” only 25 years earlier.
Luther’s search for true Christian belief and practice in the scriptures led others to do the same. Nineteen years later John Calvin, a French lawyer and theologian, published his seminal work The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Differing from Luther, Calvin emphasized original sin, the depravity of mankind, and predestination by God.
Followers of John Calvin’s brand of Christianity would establish the most successful of the early English colonies in America – Massachusetts Bay. They were “Puritans” who wanted to purify the church and rid it of all improper doctrine and practices. They came for their own religious freedom, but they did not allow it in others. Dissenters from established beliefs were banished – some were executed.
These Calvinist doctrines of original sin and predestination remained mainstream theological thought in much of colonial America. Both of these ideas would be shaken in 1770 with the arrival in the colonies of John Murray. John Murray had experienced a tortuous early life. Born in England in 1741 into a devout Calvinist family, as a young man he lived what he called a “life of dissipation.” However, he then fell under the spell of the great evangelical preacher George Whitefield and Murray became a lay Methodist minister.
During the 1760s a serious challenge to mainstream Methodists was a former Methodist minister, James Relly, who had come to adopt a view of universal salvation for all mankind. Relly supported his beliefs with selected passages from the Bible.
For instance, 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Colossians 1:19-20 “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself.” And 1 Timothy 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved.” For Relly the idea of ultimate redemption of all mankind by a loving God was clear. How could a loving Father purposefully condemn the major portion of his creation to eternal damnation in hell?
In the early 1760s Relly had a universalist congregation in London. He was attacked by orthodox ministers as “a man black with crimes; an atrocious offender, both in principle and practice.” John Murray zealously opposed the universalist theology of Relly and once referred to him as a “detestable babbler.”
In order to save a young female follower of Relly from what he saw as the “pernicious errors” of universalism, Murray tried to convince her of the error of her ways. He did not succeed. As a matter of fact, her defense of universalism raised questions in his mind. He later described his feelings at the time as “I myself carefully avoided every universalist and most cordially did I hate them.” Nevertheless, he could not dispel his doubts. Slowly he became that which he had detested – a Universalist. As a result, he was excommunicated from his church. In the meantime he had married, but after about a year his wife gave birth to a son and shortly thereafter both died. Unable to pay his debts, he even spent some time in debtor’s prison. In 1770 at the age of 28 he vowed to never preach again and decided to come to the American colonies for a new start.
Even his voyage to the colonies went amiss. Bound for New York the ship ran aground off the coast of New Jersey. There they waited for high tide to raise the vessel so they could continue the trip. Murray was sent ashore to purchase supplies in the community which was appropriately named Good Luck, New Jersey. He met a local resident, a deeply religious man who had built a chapel of his own and Murray was invited to preach there. On September 30, 1770, John Murray broke his vow to never preach again and delivered his first sermon in America on the theme of Universal salvation. Historian David Bumbaugh – who graced this pulpit last year – referred to this date as “a date which subsequent generations would fix as the beginning of universalism in America.” Shortly after the service ended, Murray was notified that the tide had come in, the ship had been freed and they were preparing to sail to New York. Some have facetiously suggested that this was “perhaps the only miracle in Universalist history.” (Howe)
John Murray then spread his universalist message. For 4 years he was an itinerant preacher, traveling throughout the American colonies, finally settling in Gloucester, Mass. There in 1779, a group of 61 believers in universalism were suspended from the local parish church for failure to attend services. They established a new congregation, the Independent Church of Christ in Gloucester, and called John Murray as their minister. This is recognized as the first universalist church in America. (Howe)
Murray was regularly attacked for his unorthodox beliefs. He was vilified as a “false teacher” who held “corrupt tenets.” Once while preaching in Boston, a rock was thrown through a window, barely missing his head. He responded by picking up the rock and stating, “This is solid and weighty, but it is neither rational nor convincing.” Another time followers of conservative orthodox minister Rev. Bacon pelted him with eggs. He responded to that assault by proclaiming “These are moving arguments, but I must own at the same time, I have never been so fully treated to Bacon and eggs before in all my life.”
In 1793 Murray became minister of the Universalist Society of Boston where he remained for 15 years. His message of universal salvation had great appeal, as you might imagine, among ordinary people, but not among the highly educated or most wealthy. Like Murray, most early Universalist ministers tended to be emotional, poorly educated, and evangelistic. As a Universalist, Murray remained a Bible-believing Christian who accepted wholeheartedly the doctrine of the Trinity.
By 1790 there were at least 17 Universalist ministers preaching their joyous message in America. That year they held a convention in Philadelphia and adopted a statement of beliefs. These “Articles of Faith” included specific clauses affirming belief in one God, Jesus as the mediator between God and man. Their statement on Universalism proclaimed that they believed that God would “finally restore the whole human race to happiness.” Although there would be differences of opinion as to how God would “restore the whole human race to happiness,” this would remain a core belief for all universalists. For his significant role John Murray is sometimes called “The Father of American Universalism.”
Unlike the Universalists who grew among the common people, the Unitarians grew among the highly educated and well-to-do. Rejecting the dour theology of Calvinism, they would use their minds more than their hearts to reject the concept of the Trinity and hold that “God is One.” In the years immediately before and after the American Revolution some liberal New England ministers led their churches to Unitarian positions. These were independent congregations, accepting and following the leadership of their individual ministers.
Conservative, orthodox ministers denounced this drift away from established acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarians, on the other hand, felt they had sound Biblical basis for their position. After all, nowhere in the Bible is there an explicit reference or definition of the Trinity. Therefore, Unitarians rejected this description of God as an illogical, unscriptural invention by men. They selected specific Bible references that supported their position and indicated a distinction between God the Father and Jesus. For instance, in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus says “Our Father which are in heaven hallowed by thy name” and “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory.” (Matthew 6:9) He later is quoted in John 16:32 as stating “I am not alone, but the Father is with me.” At the time of the crucifixion Jesus said “Father if thou be willing remove this cup from me, nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42 and “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:24), finally, “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit.” (Luke 24:46) Using such citations, the Unitarians proclaimed that there were numerous Biblical references which made it clear that God the Father and Jesus were not one in the same. Of course, this use of the Bible was not unique to them and they were neither the first nor the last to employ such tactics to support their position.
This controversy between the liberals and conservatives regarding the Trinity would erupt in 1803 over the choosing of a professor of divinity at Harvard. The Harvard Professor, Dr. David Tappan, passed away. The conservatives backed a thoroughly orthodox minister, Rev. Jesse Appleton, the liberals a suspected Unitarian, Henry Ware. After the governing board and Overseers approved the nomination of suspected Unitarian Ware in a very divided vote of 33 to 23, the conservatives raged, attacking Ware as holding secret Unitarian beliefs and claiming that he did not hold “orthodox principles” as the benefactor of the chair had stipulated. In protest, the conservatives resigned and were replaced with liberals, leaving Harvard clearly in control by liberal theological supporters. Only 5 years later the conservatives would establish their own orthodox seminary at Andover to compete with Harvard for the hearts and minds of new students and ministers. For years churches had a clear choice as they called new ministers. They could choose an orthodox, conservative religious leader from Andover or a questionable liberal and Unitarian from Harvard. This controversy at Harvard shattered the union between Trinitarians and Unitarians in New England churches.
One of the conservative overseers who had resigned, Rev. Jedediah Morse, took the controversy to a new level. Rev. Morse established a conservative religious magazine. In an attempt to highlight the orthodox position and challenge the liberals over their position on the Trinity, Morse published a pamphlet entitled “American Unitarianism.” This pamphlet was a reprint of one chapter from the recently London-published Memoirs of Theophilus Lindsey, an English Unitarian. Lindsay had shown a degree of common belief between English and American Unitarians. Having printed this chapter as a pamphlet, Morse then reviewed his pamphlet in his magazine, trying to show that liberal ministers were indeed Unitarians, that they were trying to hide their true beliefs, and that they should be expelled from their pulpits.
Chosen to reply to Morse was the 35 year old minister of Federal Street Church in Boston, William Ellery Channing. Channing denied that the ministers were Unitarian, but also proclaimed that belief or rejection of the Trinity was irrelevant. Such beliefs, according to Channing, did nothing one way or the other to help ministers inspire people to live Christian lives. Channing appealed for tolerance and acceptance of differing viewpoints. Channing now became the primary spokesperson for the liberals and he was well prepared for the task.
Channing had been born into a prominent and prosperous Rhode Island family. His mother’s father, William Ellery, had signed the Declaration of Independence. His father was Attorney General for the state of Rhode Island. At 18 he graduated from Harvard at the head of his class and later studied for the ministry there. Licensed to preach at the age of 23, Channing was called to be minister at Boston’s Federal Street Church, a position he would hold until his death 40 years later.
Thrown into the controversy surrounding the appointment of Henry Ware at Harvard, Channing was soon the intellectual leader and spokesperson for the liberals. The controversy between the liberals and conservatives, the Trinitarians and the alleged Unitarians, became even more divisive. Conservative ministers in the Boston area began to refuse to allow the liberals to speak in their pulpits. Since colonial times, Boston area ministers had regularly swapped pulpits once a month in a “pulpit exchange.” For conservatives this now meant the introduction of unorthodox, liberal viewpoints, so they stopped the practice.
With this controversy as a background, in 1819 William Ellery Channing would deliver the most famous sermon in UU history, “Unitarian Christianity.” Jared Sparks had just been called as minister to Baltimore’s First Independent Church. Channing was invited to deliver the ordination sermon. This sermon of 1819 defined Unitarians.
As his text for the sermon Channing chose 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things hold fast that which is good.” He began by explaining that he was going to depart from the normal sermon and not talk about the nature and duties of a newly ordained minister. Depart he did!! He mounted a defense of Unitarian beliefs. He defended the Bible as God’s revelation to man, but said that “The Bible is a book written for men in the language of men, and…its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We therefore distrust every interpretation which, after deliberate attention seems repugnant to any established truth…God has given has given us a rational nature and will call us to account for it.” He protested against what he called the “irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity,” declaring “We believe in the doctrine of God’s unity, or that there is one God, and one only. We object to the doctrine of the Trinity.” Jesus’ mission, according to Channing, was to bring about “a moral, or spiritual deliverance of mankind.” He then proclaimed that the true mark of a Christian was a moral life. As he said, “We think that religious warmth is only to be valued when it springs naturally from an improved character…When it is the warmth of a mind which understands God by being like him. We regard the spirit of love, charity, meekness, forgiveness, liberality, and beneficence, as the badge and distinction of Christians, as the highest image we can bear of God, as the best proof of piety.” He closed by admonishing Jared Sparks, “May your life preach more loudly than your lips” and repeated, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” Channing had boldly denounced the Trinity, called for the use of reason in religion, and proclaimed that a moral life was the true mark of religious people.
Before delivering this sermon on “Unitarian Christianity” Channing had prepared 2,000 copies for print. Within 4 months it went through 8 editions. It was the most widely circulated publication in America since Thomas Paine’s Common Sense which in 1776 had urged independence from England. Now the Unitarians were out in the open; there was no hiding their beliefs. Six years later in 1825 they would establish the American Unitarian Association.
For various reasons Unitarians and Universalists did not come together easily. Those early American Univeralists were generally poorly educated evangelicals who continued to appeal to and represent the common people. One historian has described them as “coming from the wrong side of the tracks.” On the other hand, early American Unitarians were generally highly educated, influential philosophers and writers who represented the well connected and wealthy. One historian has said that the Unitarians believed in “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the neighborhood of Boston.” A later day Unitarian Universalist would explain the difference between the two groups as the Universalists believing that God was too good to condemn them to hell, while the Unitarians believed that they were too good to be condemned to hell.
Over the years both groups would dwindle in numbers and influence, would drift to more liberal humanist positions, and in 1961 would join together to form the American Unitarian Universalist Association.
So, what do we take from these roots? Few of us these days are much concerned about eternal salvation or the Trinity. We no longer argue about universal salvation; we no longer shout that “God is one.” We no longer debate eternal bliss in a Kingdom paved with streets of gold versus eternal damnation in hell fire and brimstone; we no longer debate the oneness of God versus the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, I believe there are lessons to be learned. I would suggest that from those old Universalists we take a broad worldview and concern for others. We are all one humankind. We are all one people, inhabiting one planet. We are all in this together. The Universalists point us to a greater love for everyone and an expansive, yes Universal, regard for all. The Unitarians, on the other hand, show us a tolerance for others, an openness for inquiry, and an encouragement to use our reason. We should not sit upon the beliefs and traditions of the past. We should not rest upon the laurels of long ago. We should as William Ellery Channing encouraged his generation seek to free our mind and use our reason. We should as he said, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
Today that is what we are – Unitarian Universalists. We carry it in our name and we carry it in our beliefs. You need search no further than our Seven Principles to see the presence of Unitarian and Universalist doctrine. The Seven Principles state that we affirm and promote “the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”
“The inherent worth and dignity of every person.” That is universal.
The Seven Principles go on to state that we affirm and promote a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”
A “search for truth and meaning”. That strikes at the core of Channing’s Unitarian Christianity to “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
In my own personal journey, I did not regularly participate in church services and activities for over 30 years…until I started attending here about 5 years ago.
However, I had continued to read a great deal. One of the many books I read during those years – and I cannot recall exactly why I chose it – was “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” by Robert Fulghum. I found the book filled with folksy, down-to-earth advice, humor, and religious insight. As far as I recall, it did not make a lasting impression on me that on the jacket of the book Mr. Fulghum was described as a “Unitarian Minister.” I should have known. In the first chapter of the book he listed the important life lessons he had learned in kindergarten. These included such gems of wisdom as: “Clean up your own mess,” “Play Fair,” “Don’t hit people,” “Take a nap every afternoon.” And, of course, “Flush.”
He also included this bit of advice: “When you go out into the world, Watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.” I think that is good advice for five year olds… and for adults, as well.
I think we should continue to hold hands, look out for one another, and stick together.
We are not UUs by chance or accident, many have led the way for us as a religious association and as individuals.
Let us remember John Murray and William Ellery Channing. Let us remember who they were and the rich heritage they have passed down to us. Let us remember who we are…and let us work to make our future as meaningful and relevant as our past.
Amen.
