Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Dialog About King's Chapel's Unitarian Reformation

In America, Unitarianism evolved chiefly out of the New England Congregational Churches. Yet, theological unitarianism existed among members of probably all churches. The first "officially" Unitarian Church in America -- King's Chapel, in 1786 -- was originally Anglican.

And so it is that dynamic lead to a very illuminating correspondence among James Freeman, the man who spearheaded KC's unitarian reform and America's first Episcopalian Bishops.

Bishop Seabury (aka, the infamous "Farmer" of Hamilton's Farmer Refuted) refused to ordain Freeman because of his unitarianism and thereby cut him off from the Anglican communion.

Originally it was the unitarians who were more ecumenical. They thought they could get rid of Trinitarian dogma in church liturgy and unitarians and Trinitarians could "get along" under the lowest common denominator between them. But the Trinitarians insisted the Trinity central to "real Christianity" and consequently, non-negotiable.

This entire book is worth a read. But I am going to reproduce a passage where Rev. Freeman records his meeting with Bishop Seabury, Oct. 31, 1786 [paragraph breaks added]:

My visit to Bishop Seabury terminated as I expected. Before I waited upon him, he gave out that he never would ordain me, but it was necessary to ask the question. He being in Boston last March, a committee of our church waited upon him, and requested him to ordain me, without insisting upon any other conditions than a declaration of faith in the Holy Scriptures. He replied, that, as the case was unusual, it was necessary for him to consult his presbyters, — the Episcopal clergy in Connecticut.

Accordingly, about the beginning of June, I rode to Stratford, where a convention was holding, carrying with me several letters of recommendation. I waited upon the Bishop's presbyters, and delivered my letters. They professed themselves satisfied with the testimonials which they contained of my moral character, &c, but added that they could not recommend me to the Bishop for ordination upon the terms proposed by my church.

For a man to subscribe the Scriptures, they said, was nothing; for it could never be determined from that what his creed was. Hereticks professed to believe them not less than the orthodox, and made use of them in support of their peculiar opinions. If I would subscribe to such a declaration as that I could conscientiously read the whole of the Book of Common Prayer, they would cheerfully recommend me. I answered that I could not conscientiously subscribe a declaration of that kind.

"Why not?" — "Because there are some parts of the Book of Common Prayer which I do not approve." — "What parts?" — "The prayers to the Son and the Holy Spirit." — "You do not then believe the doctrine of the Trinity?" — "No." — "This appears to us very strange. We can think of no texts which countenance your opinion. We should be glad to hear you mention some." — "It would ill become me, Gentlemen, to dispute with persons of your learning and abilities. But if you will give me leave, I will repeat two passages which appear to me decisive: There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. There is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. In both these passages Jesus Christ is plainly distinguished from God, and in the last, God is expressly declared to be the Father." To this they made no other reply than an "Ah!" which echoed round the room.

"But are not all the attributes of the Father," said one, "attributed to the Son in the Scriptures? Is not omnipotence for instance?" "It is true," I answered, "that our Saviour says of Himself, All power is given unto me, in Heaven and Earth. You will please to observe here that the power is said to be given. It is a derived power. It is not self-existent and unoriginated, like that of the Father." — "But is not the Son omniscient? Does he not know the hearts of men?" — "Yes, He knows them by virtue of that intelligence which he derives from the Father; but, by a like communication, did Peter know the hearts of Ananias and Sapphira."

After some more conversation of the same kind, they told me that it could not possibly be that the Christian world should have been idolaters for seventeen hundred years, as they must be according to my opinions. In answer to this, I said that whether they had been idolaters or not I would not determine, but that it was full as probable that they should be idolaters for seventeen hundred years as that they should be Roman Catholicks for twelve hundred. They then proceeded to find fault with some part of the new Liturgy.

"We observe that you have converted the absolution into a prayer. Do you mean by that to deny the power of the Priesthood to absolve the people, and that God has committed to it the power of remitting sins?" — "I meant neither to deny nor to affirm it. The absolution appeared exceptionable to some persons, for which reason it was changed into a prayer, which could be exceptionable to nobody." — "But you must be sensible, Mr. Freeman, that Christ instituted an order of priesthood, and that to them he committed the power of absolving sins. Whose soever sins ye remit they are remmitted unto him, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained." To this I made no reply than a return of their own emphatic Ah!

Upon the whole, finding me an incorrigible heretick, they dismissed me without granting my request. They treated me, however, with great candor and politeness, begging me to go home, to read, to alter my opinions, and then to return and receive the ordination which they wished to procure me from the Bishop. I left them and proceeded to New York. When there I waited on Mr. Provost, rector of the Episcopal Church, who is elected to go to England to be consecrated a Bishop. I found him a liberal man, and that he approved of the alterations which had been made at the Chapel. Of him I hope to obtain ordination, which I am convinced he will cheerfully confer, unless prevented by the bigotry of some of his clergy.

The Episcopal ministers in New York, and in the Southern States, are not such high churchmen as those in Connecticut. The latter approach very near to Roman Catholicks, or at least equal Bishop Land and his followers. Should Provost refuse to ordain me, I shall then endeavor to effect a plan which I have long had in my head, which is to be ordained by the Congregational ministers of this town, or to preach and administer the ordinances without any ordination.

The last scheme I most approve; for I am fully convinced that he who has devoted his time to the study of divinity, and can find a congregation who are willing to hear him, is, to all intents, a minister of the gospel; and that, though imposition of hands, either of bishops or presbyters, be necessary to constitute him priest in the eye of the law, in some countries, yet that, in the eye of heaven, he has not less of the indellible character than a bishop or a patriarch. Our manly ancestors, who, however wrong they might be in some particulars, were in general sensible and judicious men, were of this opinion. One of the articles of the Cambridge platform is, That the call of the congregation only constitutes a man a minister, and that imposition of hands by bishops or elders is a mere form, which is by no means essential. The same sentiments are adopted by the most rational clergy in the present day, who give up the necessity of Ordination as indefensible, and ridicule the doctrine of the uninterrupted succession as a mere chimera. I am happy to find many of my hearers join with me in opinion upon this subject.

23 comments:

J. L. Bell said...

One of the interesting things about the transition at King's Chapel is that the congregation retained its socially elite character, even when moving from the highest Anglican tradition of its time to the most radical Unitarian ideas within Boston's established churches. Obviously, there was a big turnover of congregants during the war, with a lot of Anglican Loyalists leaving, so the assembly wasn't the same people. But it was the same economic class of people.

eli said...

[quote]...it was full as probable that they should be idolaters for seventeen hundred years as that they should be Roman Catholicks for twelve hundred...[/quote]
Ha!

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

This stuff goes back to the time of Constantine.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.5.html

Brad Hart said...

You are right, KOI that dissent in Christian "orthodoxy" is quite old. However, I think Jon's post illustrates some very important realities. There was a division amongst Christians as to what constituted "real" Christianity. Those who broke away from tradition were often seen as infidels.

The same thing happens today. Many followers of the Christian Nation thesis have the same standard for what constitutes a person as a Christian. They narrowly define the faith in such a way that if they are being honest with themselves, would exclude a number of the founders. This is why Jon, myself and others mention stuff like this so often. You cannot, by THEIR standards, call the founders "Christians."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Me, meself, I write for the rest of us.

I don't know what "they" say, because "they" are never quoted directly. I did a search on David Barton's wallbuilders.com site for "Christian Nation," and got only a few hits, one of them---if I recall correctly---the unitarian William Howard Taft calling the US a "Christian nation," which I have looked up and confirmed for myself. He did. Had something to do with the Philippines and the Catholic vote.
_______________

JL Bell writes:

One of the interesting things about the transition at King's Chapel is that the congregation retained its socially elite character, even when moving from the highest Anglican tradition of its time to the most radical Unitarian ideas within Boston's established churches.

As far as I've seen, non-Trinitarianism was the province of the elite, the educated, the "intellectual."

I was doing some work on Charles Chauncy being appalled at negroes and women getting up in the "enthusiasm" of the First Great Awakening to testify, to witness, to preach---quite an elitist reaction. I dropped it, since I don't think this unitarianism thing leads anywhere, but please do pick up the baton, if it's of genuine interest to you. Email me if you want whatever leads I can remember for you.

Or perhaps you're already on top of it, in which case I'd love to learn what you already know about it.

King of Ireland said...

"You cannot, by THEIR standards, call the founders "Christians."

They leave it vague on purpose I know. But Theistic Rationalist does the same thing the other way. I know you hate semantics but as long as there are people on both sides taking half truths and running with them people are going to fight for every inch.

King of Ireland said...

As far as my comment about Constantine I meant specifically the Trinity. Read the link I provided. It was a sordid affair to pass the doctrine. Nothing to do with religious conviction and all to do with peace in the Empire.

Brad Hart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad Hart said...

Totally agree with the "Theistic Rationalist" term, King. That and "Deist" or "Christian" are about as vague as you can get.

William Howard Taft saying that America is a Christian Nation doesn't really mean anything. It would be like Taft endorsing Pepsi over Coke. Who cares! Besides, we all know that Coke is better!

Here's the problem as I see it (and I think as Jon sees it) with the "Christian Nation" crowd: their own standards for what constitutes Christianity actually restricts their ability to call certain founders "Christians." Hell, with this logic I have as much right to call the founders Mormons as they do Christians. It just doesn't stand. And yes, I know the same thing can go for the "theistic rationalist" crowd as well. But let's be honest, the Christian Nationalists are much larger and spread their ilk to a larger audience.

I suppose this is why I hate semantics and labels so much. They just don't work. You judge a man (or woman) one at a time, not as a group. The founding was a Christian movement, but it was also a deist, secularist, Enlightenment, and whatever else you want.

Here's my "label" for the American Revolution and the founders: it was Baskin Robbins...31 flavors for everyone.

King of Ireland said...

"But let's be honest, the Christian Nationalists are much larger and spread their ilk to a larger audience."

I do not believe this in a nation in where textbooks either call or heavily imply that John Locke was an Deist. He was not even close. Even the "experts" miss easily verifiable evidence that he had some very orthodox views on many doctrines.

The University crowd has more influence on society than anyone in my view and it seems that most come down on the he was a Deist side. I agree 100 percent with Tom in his condemnation of the "Harvard Narrative."

Now I do not think I need to say I have a big problem with the Christian Nation people too. But after dealing with the Dispatches crowd for 3 years now I would rather work to straighten the Relgious Right out because it is actually possible(Difficult for sure). The other guys are like talking to a brick wall.

Jonathan Rowe said...

KOI:

I checked out your Muslim source about the Trinity. Muslims, like John Adams, are extremely anti-Trinitarian. That link and your thoughts are very John Adams unitarian-esq.

One of the interesting things about this dynamic King, is that, according to the orthodox, you, like Mormons, are not a "Christian."

Much of this does depend on from what perspective one comes. It is, or at least it should be easier to see America as a "Christian Nation" from the perspective of Mormonism or theological unitarianism. It's TRINITARIANS who should not see America as a "Christian Nation."

bpabbott said...

Re: "I do not believe this in a nation in where textbooks either call or heavily imply that John Locke was an Deist. He was not even close."

Was such implied by the author, or perhaps inferred the reader?

Consider that although Locke wasn't a deist, he had a great impact on Deism.

Locke wasn't a Deist as a matter of personal belief, but he is a major figure in Deist philosophy.

King of Ireland said...

"One of the interesting things about this dynamic King, is that, according to the orthodox, you, like Mormons, are not a "Christian."

I love it when they try and tell me that and I offer to buy their plane ticket to go to some of the places I have gone to share their message that they will not go to share. I never get any takers.


The shame is much like Athanas I later realized I was wrong on some thing and the message I was sending was wrong in many ways. These discussions are guiding me toward what I think is getting closer to the right message.

It begins with Love God and your neighbor as yourself. Something I always read but never fully got until I branched out and learned from some diverse people.

King of Ireland said...

"Locke wasn't a Deist as a matter of personal belief, but he is a major figure in Deist philosophy."

Probably becuase just like many athiests they take what they like and leave of the underpinnings of what he said. Which is fine but do not claim it was Locke.

bpabbott said...

Re: "Probably becuase just like many athiests they take what they like and leave of the underpinnings of what he said. Which is fine but do not claim it was Locke."

Atheists are *not* Deists.

From Wikipedia: "Locke's famous attack on innate ideas in the first book of the Essay effectively destroyed that foundation and replaced it with a theory of knowledge based on experience. Innatist deism was replaced by empiricist deism."

The new-atheists certainly qualify as empiricists. Thus, it is expected that they trace their world-view to Locke (as they should). From the new-atheist's perspective, the underpinning of their world-view is empiricism.

King of Ireland said...

Ben

If they throw out the Christian stuff they throw out half of what he said. That is my point. I also understand that atheists are not deists. My point is that deists do about the same thing with Locke as the atheists do with him.

bpabbott said...

Locke was much more than a theological philosopher.

The new atheists don't favor Locke for his theology, they favor the method he applied to seeking out answers.

King of Ireland said...

But Ben many of those answers he came up with have theological underpinnings.

bpabbott said...

Re: "But Ben many of those answers he came up with have theological underpinnings."

Given the theological framework he operated within, those answers are excellent.

Even an atheist can get excited about the liberal Locke playing an orthodox game, by orthodox rules, and vanquishing the best arguments his orthodox counterparts had to offer.

There is no need to be a theist to appreciate and respect the contributions and teachings of Locke.

Even so, from the atheist perspective Locke's theology is moot. It is his empirical method that is of great importance.

King of Ireland said...

"Even an atheist can get excited about the liberal Locke playing an orthodox game, by orthodox rules, and vanquishing the best arguments his orthodox counterparts had to offer."

The trouble with statements like this is that most of his beliefs were orthodox. The only one we have solid evidence against was original sin. The Trinity is murky.


Statements such as yours above reek(for lack of a better term) of the Locke was an atheist or deist that pretended to be a Christian argument that holds no weight at all based on his writings.

I am no scientist but if they do the same things with his arguments that the political scientists do then they are in real trouble. You take away Locke's theology from his political theory and it all falls apart. He starts with imago dei.

bpabbott said...

Re: Statements such as yours above reek(for lack of a better term) of the Locke was an atheist or deist that pretended to be a Christian argument that holds no weight at all based on his writings.

What you infer is not what I implied.

bpabbott said...

Re: "I am no scientist but if they do the same things with his arguments that the political scientists do then they are in real trouble. You take away Locke's theology from his political theory and it all falls apart. He starts with imago dei."

If you imply that Locke's answers are dependent upon his assumptions, then I agree.

However, what scientists take from Locke is his method, not his answers. Good political scientists, philosophers, theologian can do the same.

King of Ireland said...

Ben,

I guess it is the motive for studying the laws of nature. Locke's was different from most modern scientists in that he did it to find out more about God.