American Unitarian Conference Forum

Hi everyone!

I have some thoughts regarding some things I've read recently in back issues of the The American Unitarian online. Specifically I'm referring the article "Beyond Channing and Church" by Carl Scovel in the March 2004 issue . While I found Scovel's article to be very interesting and accurate in his analysis of the present state of the UUA, I was rather surprised and a bit unnerved by other parts of his article. Namely:

1) His attacks on Transcendentalism (the first paragraph or so), which he seems to treat as mutually exclusive to Unitarianism and theistic religion. Specifically I was surprised by his treatment of the idea that individual decisions are trumped by tradition (he seems to be arguing for the superiority of tradition over internal authority).

2) "The Unitarians set aside the unity of God for the free and responsible search for truth"

- Huh? Why are these opposing values? Does the AUC not embrace both?

3) "I am saying that the seeds of the dissolution of Unitarian Christianity were sown in its initial definition and defense. For, when the conflict arose between the first Transcendentalists and the Unitarian Christians, the latter—Channing, Andrews Norton and Henry Ware—tried to defend Christianity on the basis of reason—reason, that is, as they understood it. Christianity, they claimed, was both true and unique because Christ had empirically proved his authority through his power to work miracles. But the Transcendentalists, armed with American pragmatism and Enlightenment skepticism, tore that argument to shreds, and Unitarian Christianity was left with only its dubious claims to a superior morality."

-I'm confused on this one. What kind of Christianity were the Unitarians trying to preserve exactly? And what is up with this "empirically proving authority" bit? This seems like conservative Christian argument, not Unitarian.

4) I hear nothing of a Christ who was judge, rebel and embodiment of holiness. No, in his place Channing speaks of "the mild precepts" of Jesus. Mild, my eye! Are we reading the same Bible? I hear nothing from Channing of our human capacity for evil, indifference, greed, self-centeredness and corruption, which has destroyed the lives and happiness of millions throughout history and in this century, and which now threatens our existence as a species. My experience and observation is that it takes more than mild precepts, education and good will to correct the evil which threatens us from within as from without. In the words of a Trappist preacher, "Sins are not water soluble."

-Fair and very good point, but I believe the nature of the Unitarian way is to try and provide a balanced (if not naturally good) view of human nature, not original sin. As for the attributes/precepts of Jesus, I have found liberal religion in general tends to be place a higher emphasis on Christ's "mildness" in terms of compassion and inclusivity. Here if I follow Scovel correctly he seems to be associating a "mild Jesus" as a moral relativist.

5) If Jesus is a human teacher of divine truths, why should we not listen to others whom we deem to be teachers of divine truth?

If the scriptures are a book of divine wisdom, why should we not study other books of divine wisdom?

If Christianity is only one religion among others, whose only superiority lies in the reports of Christ's miracles, then why should we not learn from other religions?

-Good points but it bothers me that we still need to demand such exclusivity for Christianity. I believe the nature of liberal religion is that the whole approach does not need the exclusivity demanded by its conservative/orthodox counterpart...why does having a religion demand that we demean others?

6) "If we emphasizes Christ’s divinity to the exclusion of his humanity, we get a divine being who has nothing to do with us, as Channing so aptly said. But if we emphasize his humanity to the exclusion of his divinity, we get another great teacher or prophet.

This I think was the Unitarian error. Eventually Jesus became a great teacher and prophet; but in time we discovered other teachers and prophets, some of whom seemed more relevant, accessible, contemporary than Jesus. And then even Jesus the teacher and prophet became irrelevant."

-I LOVE this point. For me personally this is not so much of an issue anymore as I believe we can seek new, non-orthodox understands of the Trinity and Deity/Humanity of Christ and still remain true to Unitarian principles.

7) I am confused on his last few paragraphs where he criticizes the Jesus Seminar and other liberal scholarship. While I am not a cheerleader for the Jesus Seminar I am troubled by an approach which seeks to throw anthropology out the door. Many say that Marcus Borg and other such writers leave them "cold". I believe one of the consequences of using reason and viewing Christ as a human means that we must confront the "historical Jesus" if only to a limited degree. We do need faith but we are not being intellectually honest and are (in my opinion) lying to ourselves if we try to simply believe a particular image of Jesus due to "faith".

Overall I liked the article but it seems to me that in many ways Scovel is more of an orthodox Christian than a true Unitarian-his overall approach reminds me more of conservative Christians than most other Unitarian material I've read.

I hope to start some discussion on this one-please read the article and my thoughts and jump in with your own! Hope you all are well.

God Bless,

Logan

I honestly don't know enough about Transcendentalism to know if what he is saying here is true or not.

I found that to be surprising as well. I would have to disagree with him there. Certainly if some idea is a traditional idea, I will look into it, and not just offhandedly dismiss it, but I won't accept something just because it is traditionally believed to be that way. How would we ever get innovation that way?
I thought the Unitarian way was about looking at things with reason.

I'm as confused as you are about that one.

Once again, I'm confused as well. I don't think that Jesus proved his authority through miracles. I just thought he was trying to show compassion in healing people. Where does he say, "I did this to prove I am an authority." In fact, I don't see how Jesus was trying to be an authority. Didn't he try to tear down the authorities in his day? And show how they were missing the point. I don't think he wanted to be the new authority; I think he was trying to make people examine things for themselves. Perhaps my interpretation is colored by what I already believe.

Threatens our existence as a species? Now that's just hyperbole. Though I agree there is a human capacity for evil.

I'd have to agree with you there.

I think there is definitely a tendency for that. I'm not sure how much of this is true, and how much is a just a strawman of liberal religion. I was going to say how I had heard of people just saying, "Well, Jesus loves us, and we are saved, so nothing else matters, and we can do whatever we want." But then actually thinking of it, I do not believe I have actually heard anyone espouse that view, but I think it was just ingrained in me during my time in evangelistic non-denom churches.

However, I think that only focusing on the mild part of Jesus is just as bad as only focusing on the judging part of Jesus. I think there definitely needs to be a balance.

I'm not sure if Scovel is associating a "mild Jesus" with moral relativism or not. He just doesn't go into it enough for me to know.

I'm not sure they are good points. Well, I guess, in the sense that it is good to understand the implications of one's beliefs. However, I find myself saying along to this part, "Exactly, we should." I think we should listen to others who show the way to divine truth. While I think that the bible is not entirely divine wisdom, I think along the same lines here. We should look for other sources of divine wisdom. They may have captured some idea that the bible has missed. Or they may be better medium for some individuals to take in or understand. And lastly, I do believe we can learn from other religions as well. I guess what I am saying, is that I have no problem with syncretism. As long as we are always examining to make sure whatever we are incorporating is for good reason, not just because it sounds fun or whatnot.

I'd have to disagree with him here. I don't think this was the Unitarian error. This reminds me of CS Lewis' "liar, lunatic, or lord" idea, which I so vehemently disagree with. Not only do I think there is room in there for Great Teacher, I truly believe that he was just that.

Now Scovel says

I don't think this has to do with rejecting the divinity of Jesus. I think this has to do with people examining Christianity and rejecting it. I think that as long as we admit that when Jesus becomes irrelevant to us we are no longer Christian, then there is nothing wrong with that.

Exactly. I see no reason to throw out anthropology either. I haven't read much about the Jesus Seminar or of Marcus Borg, but I agree that we can't just believe in a certain Jesus just because of "faith" ignoring what we do know about the "historical Jesus" even if that is very limited, as it may well be.
This kind of touches a sensitive area for me because when I was a more traditional Christian I was told to "accept Jesus into my heart," and have a personal relationship with him. Well, I never suceeded in truly doing this. I heard other speak of their love for Jesus and talk of him as a buddy and whatnot, but this was never me. It wasn't until my encounter with some people trying to find out more about the "historical Jesus" that it hit me. Jesus was a real person, just like you or I, and that in and of itself, made Jesus accessible and relevant to me. The warm and fuzzy, happy, God-Man Jesus of mainline Christianity was what I could not relate to or understand. It made no sense to me.

Back to what he said before

So, I think we have to realize the humanity of Jesus, and with that, the "historical Jesus," even if we have differing opinions on what that actually is. However, I see no problem with also saying that Jesus was inspired by God or that God dwelt within him, as God dwells within all, which is what I believe, and I suppose that can be a sort of divinity, although I don't really label it that way.


A few more things that stuck out to me were

I totally disagree with this idea. We have to ask ourselves, "What is the purpose of the church?" I see as it a means for fellowship, and discussion, like what we do here. Yes, if someone has a revelation, they should be able to share it, but The Church should not be sharing revelation. I want people, not a Church. And definitely not a Church as another authority. Do we really need to establish another authority?

He says on the church again

First, I have to question his assumption that one must worship with others. I certainly agree with him on the point that church is for fellowship, and that we need each other's strength, but I'm not seeing why we must worship together. I think that comes from a very narrow interpretation of worship (one that is prevalent in mainline Christianity today), but I'm not certain. As for "reading and reflecting on the wisdom of my predecessors and contemporaries," how often does this actually happen in church? And does it have to happen inside church?

Also, he speaks of God as a source, and the church as a conduit. Why do we need a conduit? Why can't God "speak" to us through all things? (Our own reasoning, the bible, church, other religions, people, nature, etc.) Or is this to frightfully close to Transcendentalism?


But all the disagreements aside, I think he truly has the right heart about it.

Who could argue with that?

"What kind of Christianity were the Unitarians trying to preserve exactly? And what is up with this "empirically proving authority" bit? This seems like conservative Christian argument, not Unitarian."

In my opinion, and I think this article supports this, when Unitarianism was beginning in North America, it created a trajectory that naturally led to its expansion to a faith that is, in the words of British Unitarian Alfred Hall "more than Christian." Personally, I think it's difficult to claim the title of Christian while denying the miracles of Christ, his birth by a virgin, his resurection and bodily ascention, his atonement, his second coming, his future rule of the Earth, etc. By claiming that reason ought to be applied to Scripture and that 2,000 years of Christian doctrine was off-course, Channing opened the doors to having Christianity as a whole questioned (and any other religion for that matter).

"Here if I follow Scovel correctly he seems to be associating a "mild Jesus" as a moral relativist."

Another reason why I don't consider myself a Christian; I think it's hard to ignore the parts of the New Testament where Jesus acts in a less than sweet and gentle way. Jesus was a human being, with all the inherent faults (and gifts). Similarly people today view Gandhi as a kind of enlightened being, and I admire Gandhi greatly, but he had a view towards confronting the Nazis that was naive and wrong. This doesn't diminish his other teachings and ideas, but it does take him off the golden throne that many have put him on; and I say, for the better. What hope do the rest of us have in being better people if we think that only two options exist for us to model ourselves on-the perfect, unattainable, morally superior being or the utterly depraved, hopeless, undeserving sinner?

"If Jesus is a human teacher of divine truths, why should we not listen to others whom we deem to be teachers of divine truth?

If the scriptures are a book of divine wisdom, why should we not study other books of divine wisdom?"

This is why I, again just my opinion, consider Unitarianism to be its own religion, not just a variety of Christianity. It evolved in a way such that we can appreciate the best of Judaism and Christianity-our historic roots-and find the wisdom of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. useful as well. In addition, we have developed a core of our own beliefs. We don't have to follow absolutely any one of those older traditions, neither do we need to reject them entirely.

"This I think was the Unitarian error. Eventually Jesus became a great teacher and prophet; but in time we discovered other teachers and prophets, some of whom seemed more relevant, accessible, contemporary than Jesus. And then even Jesus the teacher and prophet became irrelevant."

I don't think Jesus necessarily becomes irrelevant but as I stated before, it makes Jesus less of an exalted being, and subsequently more accessible.

At the end of the day, the AUC's religious principles and the 5 articles of English Deism pretty well outline what I believe, and how I view Unitarianism.

It seems to me that Scovel has a clear bias against moving away from Christianity, and a rather bizarre desire to hang on to last remnants of orthodoxy.  What strikes me is that he seems to be trying to find a way to maintain the Lordship of Christ and the defining characteristics of Christianity (nor is he the only on, Steve Jones has also raised this in a number of his articles).  This is a fair point-after all, one might ask, what is a Christian?  As ndemay said below it can be difficult to claim the title of 'Christian' if you reject virtually everything that is (typically) associated with Christ.

I would agree with Sarah that there is nothing wrong with Jesus being viewed 'only' as a "Great Teacher"-I don't buy Scovel's conclusion that Christ is only relevent if we insist upon his divinity.  I believe Christ was "divine" in a sense but not in the orthodox way (whether he was a spiritual being of any kind pre-birth I obviously can't say, whether he was enlightened or had some mystical/metaphysical connection I likewise am in the dark.  He may be divine in metaphor only).  Whatever the case, I would define Christian as someone who follows the path of Christ-in a sense, making Jesus "Lord".

I agree that Unitarianism is more than Christian-I believe in some ways, so is Universalism.  I consider myself a Universalist in the sense of the Universalist Herald-aka both Christian and more than Christian.  I believe the Unitarian tradition has room for both liberal Christianity and non-Christian monotheism (be it generic theism, deism or transcendentalism).  I think of myself as both Christian and more than Christian....I don't think the two are completely mutually exclusive.  For me it's like saying I am both a New Yorker and an American-both are equally true and neither diminishes the other (though to be a New Yorker I must be an American!)

Good points Logan.

Great post! If we keep in mind he is discussing the decline of Unitarian Christianity (in America) to Transcendentalism (which in turn lost ground to Secularism)....it brings up several issues:

Can we rely on our individual internal authority?
> To what extent?
> Where does it come from?
> How do we know if it is correct?

Had Channing retained premise #2 -

"2. God's right to absolute judgment over human salvation."

I think he would have blunted one criticism of Scovel..."I hear nothing from Channing of our human capacity for evil, indifference, greed, self-centeredness and corruption, which has destroyed the lives and happiness of millions throughout history and in this century, and which now threatens our existence as a species. My experience and observation is that it takes more than mild precepts, education and good will to correct the evil which threatens us from within as from without. In the words of a Trappist preacher, "Sins are not water soluble."

I don't think premise 2 is at odds with -

"Channing described God as "infinitely good, kind, benevolent,” for "we respect nothing but excellence whether in heaven or on earth. We venerate not the loftiness of God's throne, but the equity and justice with which it is established." (p. 70) In other words, we believe in God because God represents the highest good which we can conceive. Again, Jesus "was sent to effect a moral and spiritual deliverance." (P. 74) "We regard him as Saviour, chiefly as he is the light, physician and guide of the dark, diseased and wandering mind." (p.79)

To acknowledge "equity and justice" is to imply judgement. After all, who is to judge the results of affirmed premise #5:

"5. Human salvation by moral and spiritual character."

More later..........

There is a response to Scovel's article in the same issue of The American Unitarian here:

http://www.americanunitarian.org/rosswhyjesus.htm

It chiefly concerns how a Unitarian views Jesus.

In 2004, I attended a small gathering here of people interested in Unitarian Universalist Christianity. Among the books on the table was AN EASTER FAITH, a collection of writings and sermons of Carl Scovel. Scovel is pictured in priestly dress on the cover.

About five of my friends who tend to be orthodox Christians attended with me. AN EASTER FAITH was the only book in which they showed much interest, and I think all of them purchased copies.

I have not met or heard Scovel personally, but have often been inspired by his writings. I think he's a universalist, but seems to be much more inspired in this by Karl Barth than in anyone in the universalist tradition. He often seems to be much closer to Anglicanism than to unitarianism. I've also met some Anglican/Episcopal clergy who seem much more unitarian. I don't know what Scovel's theology was like when he was young, but I think he may have moved away from unitarianism as I understand it.

John

I would agree John-I find Scovel to be a good writer but not a Unitarian. He seems to me to be too much of an orthodox Christian (unlike Unitarianism I think Universalism can still fit into orthodoxy).

We should remember that Scovel is formerly of King's Chapel, which was once an Anglican church. It still uses its own Book of Common Prayer that has been de-Trinitarianized, and many (if not most) prayers are offered "in Jesus name." Not my cup of tea, but I have a copy of their BOCP and I find KC to be very interesting and historically valuable.