ATONEMENT AND RECONCILIATION.
§ 40. Unitarians believe that atonement and reconciliation are the same thing. Both mean a state of union and peace between man and God; the harmony between the Divine justice and Divine mercy; and the substitution of trust toward God and dependence on him, for fear and the dread of his displeasure.
§ 41. Unitarians do not believe that Christ came to reconcile God to man, but to reconcile man to God; not to make God love us, but to reveal his love; not to harmonize his justice and mercy, but to show that they are always in harmony. Christ's death was not a sacrifice made to appease the Divine anger, but it was an expression of the Divine love. Paul says (Rom. viii. 32), "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"
Hopefully one can now understand how Arians like Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel West and many others from the Founding era could disbelieve in Original Sin, Trinity, and Incarnation but hold to an unorthodox view of the Atonement. Likewise they believed in the Resurrection and even Christ's "divine" nature. Christ was "divine" but created and subordinate to the Father. Lower than God but higher than the highest arch-angel. (So quotations that refer to Christ as "divine" are NOT smoking gun proofs of orthodoxy; rather one must prove the speaker believed Christ God the Son, 2nd Person in the Trinity.)
Update: I probably should have included a Founding era as opposed to a late 19th Century era quotation on unitarians and the atonement. My reasoning was this: Unitarianism seemed to (?) become even more "liberal" as time passed. Therefore IF during the mid-late 19th Cen. they still believed in something they called atonement, it's no stretch to say that many unitarians in the 18th Cen. believed it. Indeed, Jonathan Mayhew, the militant Arian he, went on at great length explaining how he believed in what he understood as the "atonement." You can read him arguing with an orthodox figure who accuses him of denying the atonement. As I understand it, 1. Mayhew clearly says he believes in (and preached) the "atonement," 2. but when explaining just how he understands the doctrine, intimates an "unorthodox" understanding of the "atonement."
I chose the 19th Cen. quotation because it reads clearer than Mayhew's.
18 comments:
Well, that's copyright 1884. It was a bit of a journey, and indeed by 1884, unitarianism had quite drifted if not separated from its Biblical roots and from the unitarianism of the Founding era that's our chief concern here.
BTW, unitarianism was a separate movement from universalism. The 2 failing churches only merged in 1961, although they'd been in contact since the later 1800s.
This should be helpful
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/hoseaballou.html
Where we see that "Atonement" was still a theology under development in universalism 1805.
There was the Westminster Profession of 1803 before that
We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain a revelation of the character of God and of the duty, interest and final destination of mankind.
We believe that there is one God, whose nature is love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness.
We believe that holiness and true happiness are inseparably connected, and that believers ought to be careful to maintain order and practice good works; for these things are good and profitable unto men.
As we see, universalism kept a Trinitarian character. You'll also find in the link above that Hosea Ballou and unitarian godfather Wm Ellery Channing didn't see eye to eye on everything about salvation.
"Given that Channing criticized Ballou on the subject of Ultra Universalism, it is not surprising that Ballou would carry the argument to Channing on the subject of salvation, specifically the Unitarian concept of "Salvation by Character." The Unitarians’ version of Arminianism led them to urge individuals to work on self-culture, striving for the moral life.
Ballou's response was to stress the sinfulness of human beings and the love of a God who had determined to save all human beings, regardless of their success or failure in attempts to live the moral life.
His argument is summed up in the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine, in 1849, in an article, the title of which was a direct challenge to the Unitarians: "Salvation Irrespective of Character." Ballou returned to the theme in an address before the Universalist General Convention, held in Boston in 1851.
In homely language, he summed up his belief in a God who, as a Father, loves all his children: "Your child has fallen into the mire, and its body and its garments are defiled. You cleanse it, and array it in clean robes. The query is, Do you love your child because you have washed it? Or, Did you wash it because you loved it?"
Well my reasoning was this: Unitarianism seemed to (?) become even more "liberal" as time passed. Therefore IF during the mid-late 19th Cen. they still believed in something they called atonement, it's no stretch to say that many unitarians in the 18th Cen. believed it.
I've got other evidence from many 18th Cen. sources. Jonathan Mayhew dithered at LENGTH on how he believed in something he called the atonement. But his language was too abstruse and his meanderings too long and boring for me to reproduce.
Love the HB quote btw.
"Your child has fallen into the mire, and its body and its garments are defiled. You cleanse it, and array it in clean robes. The query is, Do you love your child because you have washed it? Or, Did you wash it because you loved it?"
This is the Mayhew evidence btw where he's arguing with an orthodox figure who accuses him of denying the atonement. As far as I can read it, 1. he clearly says he believes in (and preached) the "atonement," 2. but goes on at great (and to me confusing) length explaining just how he understands the doctrine.
I think it's fair to summarize simply that Mayhew preached an "unorthodox" understanding of the "atonement."
http://tinyurl.com/cplh8bz
Dunno, Jon. Just seeking clarity, esp since Founding-era unitarianism was so unclear even to itself.
Most interesting to me is how Jesus was still "Christ," and referred to here & there as Savio[u]r, Messiah, Redeemer.
Unitarianism had strayed from, but not yet broken with, Trinitarianism or the Bible, and to me, that's the nub, not Unitarianism of the late 1800s, by which time it had done both. By that time it had become a footnote in American religious history.
Tom I agree with your assessment till "By that time it had become a footnote in American religious history."
Are you saying late 19th Cen. Unitarianism became a footnote in American religious history?
If anything the movement got bigger and stronger by that point and was still capturing the minds of various "key" movers and shakers like Julia Ward Howe and many other notable abolitionists (and some elite Confederates as well).
Why debate on questions of religious terms and divisions? when they are REALLY about political philosophy and policy issues?!!!
Jon, Julia Ward Howe is a footnote. Unitarianism never got terribly popular. Its outsized influence at the Founding [and it was concentrated in new England] is the only reason we mention it atall.
This table shows that it claimed relatively few followers.
1850---126,000
1890---165,000
Tom,
Wasn't Unitarianism a rational response to revivalism?
Well we are starting to get off topic and I admit I don't know nearly as much and haven't confirmed nearly as much about the history of the Civil War and its political theology as I have of that during the original Founding.
But ... it's my understanding that very similarly, unitarians exerted vastly disproportionate political theological influence, especially on the Union side. The only thing about unitarianism and the Confederacy about which I am aware is John C. Calhoun's status one.
No, Jon, we are not off topic, as religion is the way to create Utopian dreams for global "oneness"! Isn't that the REAL issue? Equality for those that aren't citizens??? (We must not discriminate....but we unfortunately MUST!)
Civil war and slavery was understood by conservatives as a Power grab of Lincoln for centralization of government....
Angie, i agree w/Jon we're getting far afield with Lincoln and centralization. It certainly is an accurate criticism, but too nuanced to get into here.
As to
Tom,
Wasn't Unitarianism a rational response to revivalism?
unitarianism was firing up in the late 1600s in britain; the First Great Awakening was c. 1730s.
But it could be said [esp about the Second Great Awakening c. 1800] that revivalism was a response to liberalism/rationalism, favoring faith and theistic "personalism" over the drier, more intellectual strains emerging in Protestantism.
In fact, a proto-unitarian, Charles Chauncy, was scandalized that undereducated women and negroes were preaching!
Tom,
Framing is everything, and I suppose since this blog is an attempt at religious framing and an inclusion mentality, then nuance isn't in the 'playing cards" (I'm being discriminated against without THAT information?).
America is FOR the personal, as this is what liberty and privacy is about, isn't it? Evangelicalism is a 'personalized faith'. But, what is faith apart from knowledge, except emotionalism, and irrationality?....and who can really have knowledge about the "transcendent", if by definition, it is beyond "the human"? Then we subscribe to "mystery", which has nothing to do with rationalism but everything to do with a religious Authority that frames what we "should believe" and "how we are to behave" under their auspices. Liberty, of the American stripe isn't about authoritarianism, like that, either.
As I said at first, the real issue is to drive the religious to act in certain ways that are cooperative with certain outcomes....using theology. And THAT is about the disenfranchised. It is ok then, to discriminate, as long as the discrimination will bring about the correct policy outcomes/solution!
Just as Obama "wooed" the evangelical in 2008 with Rick Warren, he has a new representative for the 2012 campaign trail in Joel Osteen, according to Yahoo news. Joel's message is non-rational, as it doesn't have an apologetic, it is just non-judgmental, and requiring no judgment because "God judges", not man! (so much for judging anything....is this an attempt at asking everyone to 'PUT THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS AT BAY" because we can't know the heart and "the heart" is ALL and I mean ALL that matters!!!
SO THAT those in political positions can make that decision for everyone else, WITHOUT JUDGMENT!!!!
"Unitarians do not believe that Christ came to reconcile God to man, but to reconcile man to God."
I think that the Mormon view of atonement is quite similar as well.
Brad,
Thanks for clarifying.
Post a Comment