“Unitarian Christianity at 200” Kevin M. Carson A Sermon Given at the First Universalist Parish of Chester, Vermont May 5, 2019 On May 5, 1819 William Ellery Channing delivered his famous sermon “Unitarian Christianity” (also known as the “Baltimore Sermon”) at the ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks in Baltimore, Maryland. Does his sermon that defined Unitarianism in his day still speak to us 200 years later? When you study the history of our Unitarian Universalist faith, there are a handful of important sermons and books that really defined the theological direction of the movement over the last few centuries. On the Universalist side of the family tree, for example, Hosea Ballou’s famous book, A Treatise on Atonement published in 1805, outlined the theological basis for belief in universal salvation in contrast to the harsh Calvinism prevalent in Protestant America in his day, and essentially codified the beliefs on the Universalist Church in America for the next century. On the Unitarian side, William Ellery Channing’s sermon titled, “Unitarian Christianity,” delivered in Baltimore, Maryland at the ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks, on May 5, 1819 – exactly 200 years ago today –is arguably the most important sermon ever preached in the history of Unitarianism. In fact, it was because of this sermon that like-minded Congregationalist ministers began to embrace the label “Unitarian.” Until Channing’s sermon, “Unitarian” was an epithet their more orthodox detractors often hurled at them with disdain to emphasize their rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. So, as we stand here 200 years later, calling ourselves “Unitarian Universalists,” I want to explore what, if anything, remains relevant for us from this famous sermon. Or, flipping the question around, what, if anything, would Channing recognize in our faith if he dropped in to one of our churches on a Sunday morning like today? William Ellery Channing was born in Newport, Rhode Island in 1780, and died in 1842, spending all but a few years of his life in New England. He was called to be the minister of Boston’s Federal Street Church in 1803, and he served there until his death. That congregation later moved to the corner of Arlington and Boylston Streets, and it is now known as the Arlington Street Church. As a young minister, Channing became associated with the liberal side of the so-called “Unitarian Controversy,” which began at Harvard Divinity School in 1805 when Rev. Henry Ware was appointed to fill an open theological teaching position, much to the consternation of more conservative clergy. By 1819, when Channing preached his famous sermon, many New England churches had already split from orthodoxy and declared themselves aligned with Unitarian thinking. As their ranks grew, Channing led the effort by a group of clergy serving these congregations to form the American Unitarian Association in 1825, one of the two ancestral organizations of our current Unitarian Universalist Association. For some broader historical context, America in 1819 was mostly rural, very Protestant, and in the middle of the period known as the Second Great Awakening. Evangelicalism was on the 2 upswing, and small denominations like the Baptists and Methodists would see a huge increase in numbers over the next several decades, becoming the large denominations we see today. James Monroe was President, and many of the Founding Fathers were still alive. The population of Boston was around 43,000, and most New England towns looked a lot like Old Sturbridge Village. That is no accident, of course, since the tourist attraction attempts to recreate a typical New England town from around 1830. Slavery was still an ugly fact in America in those days, and Channing spoke in opposition to slavery as early as 1825, though he was criticized for not being as zealous and vocal as many more radical Antislavery Unitarian ministers. This was also the time when the Transcendentalist movement began to emerge in New England, and though Channing had a general appreciation for Transcendentalism, he was considered to be among the more traditional, conservative members of the clergy embracing the new Unitarian name. It is one of the ironies of our tradition that what outsiders would see as radical liberal beliefs with respect to orthodox Christianity are often viewed as suspiciously “conservative” inside our faith. As Unitarianism swept through parts of America, in Europe, the so-called “higher criticism” movement, particularly among German biblical scholars, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, David Friedrich Strauss, and Ludwig Feuerbach, was beginning to examine the Bible through the lenses of history, sociology, archaeology, linguistic analysis, and the philosophy of Locke, Hume, Kant, and others. Learned scholars from Harvard were certainly aware of the work of their European colleagues, and many, like Channing, spent some time studying abroad. It is easy to see parallels in the thinking of Channing and his German contemporaries, but I think it is important to remember that Channing was foremost a minister, and his liberal theology had immediate, practical application among the nascent Unitarian churches of America. Despite the progressive scholarship in Europe, and small enclaves of establish Unitarian churches, no significant new liberal religious awakening emerged that paralleled that of American Unitarianism. So, back to the sermon. The text of “Unitarian Christianity” contains 13,108 words, and reportedly, Channing spoke for roughly an hour and a half at the service – pretty typical in those days when a good sermon was one of the few forms of entertainment available. For comparison, my sermon today contains a mere 2,854 words. Before he had even delivered the sermon, Channing knew it would stir up trouble, and he arranged with Jared Sparks to have it published almost immediately. He also encouraged the liberal clergy in attendance to spread the message throughout the land, which they promptly did, and so some people have called this the “Pentecost of America Unitarianism.”1 It didn’t take long for what became known as “The Baltimore Sermon” to live up to his expectations. Liberals embraced it, and critics were quick to respond. 1 Charles C. Forman, “Elected Now by Time,” in A Stream of Light: A Short History of American Unitarianism, ed. Conrad Wright (Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association, 1982), 23. 3 His sermon consisted on two main sections. In the first part, he described the Unitarian approach to the Bible, arguing in favor of using reason to interpret Scripture and explore theological questions. Like his contemporaries in Europe, Channing considered himself to be a liberal Christian who took the Bible seriously but not as a “divine” work. From Channing’s perspective, the authors of the Bible may have been inspired by God in some fashion, but it was written by ordinary human beings. As he says plainly in the sermon, the “Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books.” He believed we have a responsibility to approach the Bible rationally, as rational human beings, and God would not want it any other way, for as Channing says, “if God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures.” Having laid out the case for applying reason to Biblical interpretation, the second part of his sermon outlines five principle beliefs of Unitarians that logically follow. His purpose was to clearly define what it meant to be a Unitarian, or as he says in the sermon, “to state some of the views which we derive from that sacred book, particularly those which distinguish us from other Christians.” The first, and most fundamental belief he asserts, is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not supported in the Bible. Moreover, Channing suggests it is even subversive to the core of the Christian faith. He says, “The proposition that there is one God seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand it that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong.” There was not much ambiguity in his thinking on this topic to say the least. Like Arius and many others down through the centuries, since the earliest days of the faith, it was clear to Channing that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures described our relationship with a unitary God. His second point follows as an obvious corollary of disavowing the Trinity: Jesus was fully human. Although Channing imagined Jesus to be the exemplar of moral perfection, he could not conceive of Jesus as part of some triune godhead, nor did Jesus have an inexplicable “dual nature” that was both fully human and fully divine – a doctrine that Channing derided as being “so strange, so difficult, so remote from all the previous conceptions of men.” Channing still viewed Jesus as special – indeed, as the Christ – but to make him out to be something beyond fully human missed the whole point of his mission. In more contemporary language, for Channing, Jesus was, by the example of his life and through his teachings, “one in whom God is fully met.” As Channing says in the sermon, “It is our belief, that Christ’s humiliation was real and entire, that the whole Saviour, and not a part of him, suffered, that his crucifixion was a scene of deep and unmixed agony. As we stand round his cross, our minds are not distracted, nor our sensibility 4 weakened …We recognize in the dying Jesus but one mind. This, we think, renders his sufferings, and his patience and love in bearing them, incomparably more impressive and affecting than the system we oppose.” Channing’s third point was about the moral perfection of God.