Since the Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly will be held in Minneapolis this year, I though some choice words from one of the more prominant Universalist ministers to have served in the city would be an appropriate selection. I’m particularly fond of the second Ballou quote, below. I’ll see if I can find the source of his biblical citations, too: an interesting translation. (Well, that was easy: both are from John 16, in the good ol’ King James. I was thinking it might have been one of the early “modern” translations.)

The Arena, vol. 14 (1895), p. 144-154

Progressive Changes in Universalist Thought.

by Rev. Marion D. Shutter, D.D.

The author of the fourth gospel attributes this remarkable utterance to Jesus: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all the truth.” The Great Master is just about to be taken away. His three years of personal instruction are at an end. He admonishes His disciples not to think that He has told them everything — that He has given them a full and complete revelation of all that is to be known, of all that they and the world need to know. There will be growth and progress in religious thought. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” Ye are not yet prepared, O My disciples, for the entire realm of truth. I have led you across the boundary line into the new territory, but vast, unexplored regions lie beyond. “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all the truth.” God’s Spirit of truth is to be always in the world, guiding men from age to age.

“The letter fails and systems fall,
And every symbol wanes;
The Spirit over-brooding all,
Eternal love, remains.”

These words show us, in a very striking way, one phase of the work of Jesus Himself. He did not seek, as many of His followers have done, to bind men down to certain formulas, to limit their thinking to certain propositions, to prevent them from going beyond the revelations of that particular time. Remotest from His purpose was the attempt to fasten chains upon the human mind. He was a breaker of bonds; He was a destroyer of traditions; He was the outlawed heretic of His day, the prince of iconoclasts. He stirred men up, He made them think. He gave a marvellous impulse to the religious intellect. He taught the people of His day, and the people of every subsequent age, not to repose upon the teachings of the past, but to watch with sleepless eye the ever-opening and ever-enlarging unfoldings of God.

If Jesus were upon the earth to-day, who can doubt that He would heartily welcome, as portions of the everlasting gospel, the revelations of the astronomer’s telescope, which show the work of God to be so much more vast than earlier generations dreamed; the revelations of the geologist’s pick and spade, which extend the work of God through uncounted ages, and remove that wondrous “in the beginning” far into the twilight of the past eternity; the revelations that have come through the naturalism’s researches, showing the methods of the Creator? All these would Jesus welcome to-day. He would command His followers to stand, with uncovered heads, before the rising and growing vision, and would Himself lead them in the ascription of praise — “Great and marvellous are Thy works, O Lord God Almighty.”

How contrary to His high example the conduct of those who say: “Here in our creed is the truth of God, beyond which you must not go. We have it here in compact and definite shape. Beyond this is danger, destruction, damnation!” The denomination whose name appears in the title of this paper is not prepared to take such an attitude. We revere the past, but we do not idolize it. We do not break with it, but we are not fettered by it. We know full well that the foundations are laid there; but we know quite as well that we shall never get on with the building if we stop with the foundations. “One layeth the foundation, another buildeth thereupon.” Our work is that of the builder. Every denomination that intends to live must adjust itself, in each generation, to new conditions of life and thought.

I. The earliest Universalism in this country is represented by that noble figure, of whose work and influence we must always speak with respect, —

John Murray.

Born in Alton, England, Dec. 21, 1741, of Calvinistic parents, his home was constantly overshadowed by religious severity. No sunshine entered the life of the child. His father seldom indulged in a smile. The boy was taught that for any person not one of the elect to say of God or to God, “Our Father,” was nothing better than blasphemy. Thus early in life were the terrors of religion impressed upon his soul. He passed through childhood, as many another has done, in constant agony, his childish imagination filled with pictures of the last day, the world in flames, and horrible devils carrying off the wicked to their doom. Like many another child he hardly dared to go to sleep at night, for fear of awaking next morning in hell! (Such were the teachings by which it was once thought to make religion attractive to children.)

As young Murray grew up, the Methodists began to come into his neighborhood. He was carried away by their enthusiasm, but never changed his Calvinistic views. He chose Whitefield, who was Calvinistic, rather than Wesley, as his guide, although Wesley himself made a class leader of John Murray. Later the young man came under the influence of James Relly, who, from being a preacher in Whitefield’s connection, had become a preacher of Universalism. He was convinced by the reasoning of Relly and adopted his views of destiny. Then followed his excommunication from Whitefield’s society, persecution by his old friends and neighbors, the death of his wife — one calamity after another, until, broken-hearted and in despair, he resolved to cross the ocean and seek in the new world “to close his life in solitude and complete retirement.”

He came, but not to close his career. He came to begin the real work of his life. He came to start a movement that has never died and will not die — a movement that is destined to sweep from theology every vestige of cruelty and darkness that still lingers; a movement whose influences are seen today in the more humane tone of the pulpit and the growing demand for expurgated creeds. The story of his reception upon these shores is curious enough. It is not necessary to restate here the manner of his meeting with Thomas Potter on Cranberry Inlet, and the way in which, all unconsciously and without design, preparation had been made for his advent. If he had come to proclaim the old-fashioned message of burning wrath and relentless doom, his reception would have been called a “wonderful providence.” He did not come, however, for the purpose of preaching any doctrine; he did not mean to open his lips; but when circumstances compelled him to speak, he preached the gospel of boundless love and universal victory over evil. We shall, therefore, refrain from calling the manner of his reception a “wonderful providence,” that we may give no offence to our evangelical friends, and allow the whole transaction to be classed as an “inscrutable mystery.”

This was the beginning. What were the theological opinions of Murray? Those opinions were, to a large extent, characteristic of the Universalism of his day. They represent the early period of the denomination, and are of interest as showing from what we have advanced. Murray was, in most particulars, a decided Calvinist. He was trinitarian in his ideas of God and in his views of Christ’s nature and relation to God. He believed in the traditional fall of Adam and all its consequences, original sin and transmitted depravity. He believed in vicarious sacrifice. He held that endless punishment was, indeed, the just due of human sin; but that Christ had borne the penalty of all, and that all would at last be saved. He held, in his own peculiar way, the doctrine of election, but he enlarges it, in the event, to include all except the “spirits that fell from heaven.” He did not go quite so far as Origen, who believed that the devil himself would finally be brought to the “mourner’s bench” and soundly converted. Murray believed in a personal devil, but handed him over to be dealt with upon strictly orthodox principles.

Such was the theology of Murray. Such, for the most part, was early Universalism. Such was the rock from which we are hewn, the hole of the pit from which we are digged. There were, however, especially during the latter part of his ministry, those who differed from his views in regard to the person and mission of Christ. Among them were Rich, Winchester, and Ballou. Of these Murray was moved to say, “I know no persons further from Christianity, genuine Christianity, than such Universalists.” Murray, honest and faithful, believed sincerely that there was to be no advance in Universalism beyond the form in which he held and delivered it. There was nothing to be said that he had not said. Departure from the paths he had marked out was departure from Christianity itself. Murray had himself departed from Whitefield and Wesley; but no one must depart from Murray!

Let us not blame him because he was mistaken. Let us reverence him for the work he did, and for making possible still later and better work. He brought, in a certain degree, the spirit of truth, the spirit of inquiry and investigation; and that spirit has led his disciples into fields beyond the dooryard of their master. It was glory enough for him that he rimmed with light the iron throne of Calvinism; that he found a heart of love in the God of that terrific system; that to the little band of the elect on earth, he added the mighty host of human souls in the hereafter; that he dropped the plummet of God’s redeeming mercy to the bottom of hell!

II. I have suggested certain departures from his views among some of the Universalists, towards the latter part of Murray’s career. We must, therefore, call attention to the second great figure in our history,

Hosea Ballou,

who stands for the next phase of denominational thought.

Born at Richmond, N. H., in 1771, thirty years after the birth of Murray, he also sprang from a Calvinistic family. His father was a Calvinistic Baptist minister. The youth of Ballou was as about as miserable, theologically speaking, as that of Murray. He himself relates: —

We were all taught, and in our youth believed, that we were born into the world wholly depraved, and under the curse of a law which doomed every son and daughter of Adam to eternal woe. At the same time God had made provision for a select number of the human family, whereby they would be saved by the operations of the Divine Spirit, which would operate in what was called conversion sometime during the life of those elected. Those who were not elected would remain without any effectual calling, die, and be forever miserable. When I was a youth, it was the sentiment of all Christian people, so far as I knew, that not more than one in a thousand of the human family would be saved from endless condemnation.

With a mind naturally logical, Ballou, as he grew up, discovered the absurdities and inconsistencies of the prevailing theology, and before long we find him excommunicated from his father’s church for being a Universalist. The father entreated and remonstrated, but the son was firm. Among the questions he put to his father was this: “Suppose I had the skill and power out of an inanimate substance to make an animate, and should make one, at the same time knowing that this creature of mine would suffer everlasting misery — would, my act of creating this creature be an act of goodness ?” The question troubled his father, but it was never answered. The only answer, indeed, that the orthodoxy of Ballou’s day, or of any other day, has ever made to such questions, is to solemnly warn against the use of human reason : “Do not think and question; only believe. The use of reason may destroy your soul!”

While the logical mind of Ballou could not rest satisfied with the orthodoxy of his day, no more could it rest satisfied with theology as John Murray would have it. In his remarkable work on “The Atonement,” a work which embodies most of his own system, he distinctly repudiates the doctrine of the Trinity; he teaches that Christ was a dependent, created being, and not God; he rejects the vicarious and substitutionary sacrifice, and holds that Christ was sent into this world to teach men the way to God and reconcile them to Him. He also repudiates the doctrine of a fall and of inherited depravity, and insists on the originial rightness of human nature. In his early life he appears to have believed that there would be disciplinary suffering in the next world; but latterly he abandoned this idea. “His matured opinion seems to have been,” according to Dr. Cone, “that sin is punished when and where it is committed; and as he did not believe that men would sin in the life to come, he did not think they would suffer punishment in that state of existence.” His doctrine, for this reason, was known among his opponents as the “death-and-glory doctrine.”

Mr. Ballou’s book and preaching revolutionized — or, as Murray would have described it, “wrecked” — the denomination. Different from the spirit of Murray, in this respect, was the spirit of Hosea Ballou. He seems to have realized, as did Jesus, that the spirit of truth would constantly lead the earnest seeker into new regions; and in the preface to his great book, published about eighty years ago, he writes: —

It is a happy circumstance that in the denomination of Universalists no one feels bound to support and defend the particular opinions of another any further than he is himself convinced of their truth and importance. Our platform of faith is general, and allows individuals an extensive latitude to think freely, to investigate minutely, and to adopt what particular views best comport with the honest convictions of the mind, and fearlessly to avow and defend the same.

Golden words, and words we do well to remember to-day.

Ballou accepted Murray’s doctrine of destiny, and added to it the doctrine of the Divine Unity and of Christ’s work as a moral power influencing men to God. A rational view of Deity and of the nature of salvation was Ballou’s work upon Murray’s foundation. Having finished his course and. accomplished his task, he fell asleep in the year 1852. Says President Cone: —

A great and spotless soul, he well deserves the meed of reverence and of honor from us of this generation who have entered into his labors. Well shall we do and deserve if we perform the work allotted to us with the zeal and consecration, with the courage and sincerity, and with the geniality and toleration which distinguished Hosea Ballou.

III. The Modern Period

Since the death of Ballou, we cannot say that any one man has become the embodiment and exponent of a period. There has been progress since his day, but the thought and tendencies of the modern epoch are not gathered up in one individual.

The denomination still stands with its foundations in the past. It retains the doctrine of human destiny for which Murray so zealously labored, but it disclaims the Calvinism with which that doctrine was associated in his mind. With Ballou, it repudiates his ideas of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, vicarious sacrifice, and total depravity. It accepts with Ballou the unity of God, the original Tightness of human nature, and the morally educational work of Jesus Christ. But it no longer accepts the later teaching of Ballou, that punishment for sin is confined to this life; the vast majority to-day would say that penalty may extend and does extend into the other life, and lasts while sin lasts.

But if modern Universalism retains so much of the work and thought of the past, we may well ask, “Has it any characteristics of its own ? What distinguishes the Universalism of to-day from the Universalism of the fathers?” It is already apparent that there is a large body of truth which we hold in common with them. Wherein do we differ?

1. The Universalism of to-day differs from that of yesterday, in some respects, as the oak differs from the acorn; it is the development of certain germs of truth whose unfolding was long delayed.

For example, our fathers, in the confession of 1803, departed so far from orthodoxy as to declare that the “Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain a revelation of the character of God, the duty, interest, and final destination of mankind.” Orthodoxy said, “The Scriptures are such a revelation from beginning to end.” We can hardly realize to-day the length of the departure measured by the word contain. The fathers also affirmed man’s right to use his reason in the interpretation of the Bible, to whatever conclusion he might be led. The orthodoxy of the day insisted that reason must only be used so far as it brought one back to the predestined conclusions of the creeds. All this was before the day of scientific criticism, and while our fathers affirmed the difference in value and importance of different parts of the Bible, yet in their handling of proof texts they proceeded upon the orthodox assumption, and in their answers and arguments treated every passage, from whatever part of the Bible it came, as if it stood upon a level with every other passage. They denied the infallibility of Scripture, and yet built their theology upon the very infallibility they denied. They recognized the office of reason, but confined it to the explanation of texts.

That word “contain,” however, was a seed that has germinated and marvellously grown under the influence of modern critical study. Within its wonderfully elastic boundary line, we find room for the results of the scholarship of to-day. We no longer assume infallibility. We recognize the progress in morality, in religion, in everything, that different portions of the Bible indicate. We recognize the human error, even while we feel the divine heart-beat underneath. To them the Bible was the book of theology; to us it is the book of life. To them it was the mathematics of dogma; to us it is the literature of religion. To them it was a magazine of proof texts; to us it is the torch of the spirit to kindle the flames of devotion and love. It decreases as a theological authority; it increases as a guide to duty, as an inspiration to holiness. A merely textual Universalism has had its day. We no longer think it worth while to show that a smiling countenance is hidden behind every frowning text. Reason, from the drudgery of interpretation, has been lifted to the supreme authority. But the change that has been wrought was all originally wrapped up in that word “contain.”

2. The Universalism of to-day differs from that of yesterday, in some other respects, as the kernel differs from the shell; it makes use of the vital and essential truth of the past without the former discussions concerning the incidental and subordinate.

One difficulty with the Universalism of other days was its terminology. It was loth to part with the expressions of orthodoxy. It used the Trinitarian formula in baptism, in benediction and doxology, although it denied the Trinity. From some of these expressions many suppose, even to-day, that the Universalist church believes in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is frequent necessity to correct this impression. It used the orthodox phraseology to describe the work of Christ, while denying the vicarious sacrifice; so that many thought and still think that the only difference between the Universalists and others upon this subject is in the extent of Christ’s work and not at all in its nature. Then, too, there were many discussions about the person of Christ. There is still diversity of view. Not all in the denomination think alike concerning the miraculous birth, the preexistence of Jesus, the exact place of His classification in the scheme of being, and the entire subject of the supernatural.

While in regard to the Bible we have felt the impulse of modern criticism, so in regard to all that has been believed to transcend the ordinary course of nature, we have felt the influence of modern science, The old distinction between natural and supernatural is vanishing. The kingdom of God is not divided into two antagonistic provinces. Slowly but resistlessly increases the thought that the doctrine of “special interferences” must go with the doctrine of “special creations”; that every apparent exception is in reality a part of the universal order. There is no diversity, however, regarding the moral power of Jesus, His life, His example, His teaching. These are the essential things. That exalted human personality, that incarnation of godliness into actual character, in its moving and moulding might, is still preached, while the nugatory questions of the past about Jesus, are allowed to pile themselves up like driftwood along the banks of the living stream.

3. Once more, the Universalism of to-day differs from that of yesterday, as the demonstration in mathematics differs from the application to practical mechanics.

It was, indeed, necessary for great principles to be wrought out, for great doctrines to be established; and for this purpose line upon line, precept upon precept, were needed. The doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood must be veritably driven into the minds of men and fixed there. Sermon upon sermon up-piled, debate overtopping debate, these were needed to abolish the everlasting dungeons of the future. The work was done and well done. All honor to the sturdy fathers of the faith. Let none of the younger generation, who cannot realize the difficulties of that elder day or the heroism it took to meet them, say one word in contempt or depreciation. Let us do our work as faithfully as they did theirs.

It must strike one, however, that, from the very necessity laid upon them, the theology of the fathers was very largely a theology that centred in the future. Its field was the hereafter. Its prevailing aspect was that of “other-worldliness.” It banished the clouds from the heavens, but left many a shadow resting upon the earth. It is for us to take the great truths of God’s Fatherhood and of man’s destiny, turn them earthward, and find here and now their application. Our fathers smote the tyrant of the skies; it is for us to take the same principles by which they did it, and smite the oppressions of the earth. Our fathers affirmed an immortal worth in the vilest creature; they said there was something in him that ages hence would burst into magnificent blossom in the sunlight of paradise. It is for us to insist that the processes of unfolding shall not be postponed; that they shall begin on earth, and that the conditions for that unfolding shall be made as favorable as possible.

The immortal worth of every human being! Put that idea under society, and it is no longer a machine for turning out dollars, but a garden for the cultivation of men. It is this idea that is stirring the world to its foundations, and beginning to thaw the icy maxims of political economy. It is teaching us that human labor is not, in the ordinary sense, a commodity; not to be bargained for in the market-place as if it were a barrel of flour or a load of lumber; not to be driven to the wall by advantage taken of its pinching necessities; that it differs from other commodities because behind every stroke of work is a brain whose powers of thought and inspiration are sparks from the infinite light, a heart whose throbs of affection pulsate with the immortal love and the immortal life.

The worth of a human being! We see it in every movement to abridge the hours of physical toil, that the mind may be more free for improvement. We see it in every law to protect life and limb for those who labor amid the complex machinery of the factory and mill. We see it in the laws to protect childhood from the blight of that toil to which so many are doomed even before their arms have “seven years’ pith.” We see it in the provisions that make attendance at school compulsory, and in the additional provisions to make that attendance effective by furnishing free text-books as well as other appliances. The value of humanity in this world is the moral of those old discussions about the future.

Well did our fathers say that no saint could bear the sight of endless misery over yonder; why should any real saint be able to bear any better the sight of the awful misery that still exists in this world — the “Inferno of Modern Civilization,” as Mr. Flower has so well named it ? O living saint, wait not for the future. Put aside that noblest of all dreams, the exploration of the regions of the lost hereafter, and carry your message of hope and love and restoration into these hells of to-day of which our cities are full — these hells of pauperism, of grinding poverty, of innocent suffering, of ghastly intemperance, hells of the sweater’s shop and the loathsome tenement, hells whose fires “man’s inhumanity to man” has lighted — and here let your gospel sound its music. Seraph-wing and savior-heart are needed here and now.

These are the lines along which must move the Universalism of to-day. Along these lines victory is certain. No nobler opportunity is before any people. We must keep in sympathy with the world’s thought and the world’s life. Let us apply the principles of our fathers, and coming generations will rise up and call us blessed, as we look back to Murray, Ballou, Winchester, and all the transfigured company who have gathered, crowned and radiant, in the heavens!

Share this article

As you might tell, I’m interested in Universalism in 1899 — and also back to 1897 — when changes in the Universalist General Convention occasioned great optimism in the denomination. Here is the first set of two featured in the first volume of Who’s Who. Worth a scan. More women than I would have bet, and more temperance activity, too.

ADAMS, John Coleman, Universalist clergyman; b. Malden, Mass., Oct. 25, 1849; grad. Tufts Coll., 1870 (B. D.; A. M., for work done; D. D.) Pastorates; Lynn, Chicago, Brooklyn; member Authors’ Club; trustee Tufts Coll. and of Universalist gen. convention. Author: The Leisure of God; Christian Types of Heroism; The Fatherhood of God; Nature Studies in Berkshire. Address: 101 Wilson St., Brooklyn, N. Y.

BOLLES, Edwin Cortlandt microscopist-clergyman; b. Hartford, Conn., Sept. 19, 1836; grad. Trinity Coll., Hartford, 1855; studied theology and became Universalist clergyman; (Ph. D., St. Lawrence Univ., 1860; S. T. D., Tufts Coll., 1881); made a specialty of microscopy and, 1870-73, was prof. of microscopy, St. Lawrence Univ., Canton, N. Y.; lectured on same subject for years at Tufts Coll. Address: Melrose, Mass.

CAPEN, Elmer Hewitt, pres. Tufts Coll. since 1875; b. Stoughton, Mass., April 6, 1838; grad. Tufts, 1860; (D. D., St. Lawrence Univ., 1876); m., 1st, Letitia H. Mussey, New London, Conn.; 2d, Mary L. Edwards, Brookline, Mass. Elected to Mass. legislature, 1859, while still in college; attended Harvard Law School; admitted to bar, 1864; practiced at Stoughton for short time; then studied theology; ordained pastor of Independent Christian Ch., Gloucester, Mass., 1865; pastor First Universalist Ch., Providence, R. I., 1870-5: member Mass. State bd. of education. Address: Tufts College, Mass.

CHAPIN, Augusta J., Universalist minister; b. Lakeville, nr. Rochester, N. Y.; studied in Olivet Coll. and Lombard Univ.; grad. (A. M., Univ. of Mich., 1882; D. D., Lombard Univ., 1893). Preached her first sermon in Portland, Mich., May 1, 1859; has since then been in active ministry; regularly ordained Universalist minister, Dec. 3, 1863. Has held pastorates at Portland, Mich.; Iowa City, Ia.; Lansing, Mich.; Pittsburg, Pa.; Aurora, 111.; Oak Park, 111.; and Mt. Vernon, N. Y.; also writer and public lecturer; extension lecturer in English, Univ. of Chicago; lecturer in literature and art, Lombard Univ.; chairman of Woman’s General Committee in World’s Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. Member Sorosis, New York, and other prominent clubs; pres. Nat. Assn. of Woman Ministers. Address: Mount Vernon, N. Y.

EDDY, Richard, Universalist minister; b. Providence, R. I., June 21, 1828; academic ed’n Clinton, N. Y. (S. T. D., Tufts Coll.); chaplain 60th N. Y. vols., 1861-3; pres. Universalist Hist. Soc. since 1877; editor Universalist Quarterly Review, 1884-91; editor Universalist Register since 1887; Prohibitionist. Author: History of 60th N. Y. State Volunteers; History of Universalism in America, 1636-1886 (2 vols.); Alcohol in History; Alcohol in Society; Universalism in Gloucester, Mass.; History of Universalism, A. D., 120-1890 (in Vol. X, Am. Ch. Hist. series). Was pastor Universalist Ch., Gloucester, Mass.; now at Chatham. Address: Chatham, Mass.

HANAFORD, Phebe Anne, Universalist minister; b. (Coffin) Nantucket, Mass., May 6, 1829; (direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin); m., 1849, Joseph H. Hanaford, a teacher. Taught school; edited Ladies’ Repository and The Myrtle, 1866-8; lecturer on literary and reform topics; ordained, 1868, the first woman minister ordained in New England; held pastorates at Hingham and Waltham, Mass., New Haven, Conn., and Jersey City; member and officer many literary and temperance societies. Author: Life of Abraham Lincoln; Life of George Peabody; Lucretia, the Quakeress; Leonette, or Truth Sought and Found; The Best of Books and Its History; Frank Nelson, the Runaway Boy; The Soldier’s Daughter; Field, Gunboat and Hospital; Women of the Century; The Captive Boy of Tierra del Fuego; Life of Dickens; Heart of Siasconset; From Shore to Shore and Other Poems; etc. Address: 201 W. 88th St., New York.

HOUGHTON, Edward Lovell, Universalist clergyman; b. Lawrence, Kan., Sept. 20, 1858; grad. Harvard, 1879 (A. M., 1880); Andover Theol. Sem., 1883; m., Aug. 16, 1883, May L. Burrill, Medford, Mass. In Universalist ministry since 1884; pastor Universalist Ch., Pawtucket; v.-p. Bethany Home, Providence; v.-p. Associated Charities, Pawtucket. Translator from German of Reuss’ History of the New Testament. Address: 2 Brook St., Pawtucket, R. I.

LEE, John Clarence, pres. of St. Lawrence Univ. since 1896; b. Woodstock, Vt., Oct. 15, 1856. In 1859 his father, John S. Lee, D. D., became first pres. St. Lawrence Univ., where the son graduated, 1876 (A. M., 1879; Ph. D., 1895); also grad. Harvard, 1878, and Canton Theol. School, 1880 (S. T. D., Tufts Coll., 1896); after 4 years in Universalist ministry became prof. English literature Lombard Univ., Galesburg, 111., 1884; v.-p. same, 1892-6; m., Nov. 25, 1889, Helena Crumett, Hyde Park, Mass. Address: Canton, N. Y.

LIVERMORE, Mary Ashton, author-lecturer; b. (Rice) Boston, Dec. 19, 1820; ed. public schools and Charlestown (Mass.) Female Sem.; taught school; m., 1845, to Rev. D. P. Livermore, Universalist minister. Was active in anti-slavery and the Washingtonian temperance movements; went to Chicago, 1857, where her husband became editor and she asso. editor of a Universalist paper; was active in U. S. Sanitary Comm’n during Civil war; was first pres. Ill. Woman’s Suffrage Assn.; editor The Agitator, woman suffrage paper, 1869; merged it into the Woman’s Journal, 1870; was editor of latter 2 years, removing to Boston. Was 10 years pres. Mass. W. C. T. U.; is pres. Mass. Woman’s Suffrage Assn.; member of many societies. Has delivered lectures all over the U. S. and in England and Scotland. Author: The Children’s Army; Thirty Years Too Late; Pen Pictures; What Shall We Do With Our Daughters; My Story of the War; A Mental Transformation; Autobiography; also American Women (with late Frances E. Willard). Address: Melrose, Mass.

MAYO, Amory Dwight, clergyman-educator; b. Warwick, Mass., Jan. 31, 1823; ed. Deerfleld Acad, and Amherst Coll. (A. M., Amherst; LL. D., Berea, Ky., Coll.); taught in common schools of Mass., 1839-44; prof, and lecturer, Meadville, Pa. (Unitarian), Theol. School, 1868-98; minister Universalist Ch., Gloucester, Mass., 1846-54; Independent Christian Ch., Cleveland, O., 1864-6; Division St. Ch., Alley, N. J., 1856-63; Ch. of the Redeemer (Unitarian), Cincinnati, 1863-72; Ch. of the Unity, Springfield, Mass., 1872-80; has since devoted his attention to the cause of ed’n in the South, lecturing in thirty States; chief editorial writer in New England and National Journal of Education, 1880-6. Author: The Moral Argument for Universalism; Graces and Powers of the Christian Life; Biography and Collected Writings of Mrs. S. C. Edgarton Mayo; Symbols of the Capitol, or Civilization in New York; Talks With Teachers; Southern Women in the Recent Educational Movement in the South; History of the American Common School, etc. Address: 25 Beacon St., Boston.

MOORE, Henrietta Greer (Miss), pastor Universalist Ch.; b. Newark, O., Sept. 2, 1844; removed in Infancy to Cincinnati; ed. in schools in Warren Co., O., and by private tutors; became a teacher; later an active worker in the Woman’s Crusade and a lecturer in Interest of temperance and woman suffrage; removed to Springfield, O., 1887; ordained, June, 1891, minister in Universalist church: trustee of Buchtel Coll., Akron, O., appointed 1893; member of Springfield school board, elected, 1895; temporary chairman Ohio Prohibition State convention, 1895. Address: 316 W. Mulberry St., Springfield, O.

Share this article

Unitarian and Universalist Federation

The Outlook, December 2, 1899, p. 759-60

In The Outlook for November 18 we called attention to the proposed union of the Universalists and Unitarians in one denomination, and to the objections to such a union expressed by Dr. Edwin C. Sweetser, speaking for the Universalists. We did not express any opinion as to the wisdom of denominational unity between Unitarians and Universalists, simply saying that, if there were serious and fundamental differences, between the two Churches, an attempt to bring about organic unity would be unwise, if not impracticable. We have now received a letter from the Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, Secretary of the American Unitarian Association, who, from his official position, speaks with authority; in this letter he takes issue with Dr. Sweetser and corrects a general misapprehension in which we shared. Mr. Eliot points out that no organic welding of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations into one has been proposed. He states the facts as follows:

On May 30, 1899, the American Unitarian Association, at its annual meeting, passed unanimously the following resolution:

“Resolved, That the interests of pure Christianity can be better served by a recognition of the intellectual agreements and the deep faiths of the heart which, beneath all diversity of gifts, bind together the Unitarian and Universalist fellowships in bonds of peace and mutual good will.

“Resolved, That this Association presents its fraternal greetings to the Universalist General Convention, and invites the Convention to join with the Association in appointing a Conference Committee of five representatives from each body, which shall consider plans of closer co-operation, devise ways and means for more efficient usefulness, and report the results of its deliberations to the Association and the Convention at their next meetings.”

These resolutions were duly submitted to the Universalist General Convention on October 23, the invitation was accepted, and the members of the Conference Committee have since been appointed by the Universalist Convention and the Unitarian Association. It will be the purpose of this Conference Committee to endeavor to upbuild sympathy and unity of spirit in the sister denominations, to prevent waste and duplication of missionary effort, and to provide means of more efficient co-operation in Christian work.

Certainly such co-operation and union as this is desirable. Mr. Eliot also takes issue with Dr. Sweetser’s criticism of the belief of the Unitarian body. “His attempt,” says Mr. Eliot, “to prove that the Unitarian body is non-Christian is a repetition of an ancient prejudice which is unworthy of intelligent observers in these days.” We agree in this with Mr. Eliot, but the very decided difference of opinion and of feeling on these matters existing between him and Dr. Sweetser is an indication, as we said in our former paragraph, of a widespread difference in point of view between the two denominations, which would make organic union impracticable. But this does not, in our opinion, interfere with the closer co-operation and fellowship which, as Mr. Eliot points out, is the purpose of the leaders in the two denominations.

Share this article

Dr. Sweetser on Unitarian and Univeralist Union

The Outlook, November 18, 1899, p. 664-5

Dr. Edwin C. Sweetser, in the Universalist “Leader” for October 7, presents with great frankness and great vigor the objection entertained by a portion of the Universalist body to the proposed union of the Universalists and Unitarians in one denomination. His statement of the difference between the two denominations, as he understands it, is put clearly and concisely in the following paragraph:

Agreeing as they do in some respects, they nevertheless differ in that vital respect so widely as to make it impossible for them to promote the interests of Christianity by uniting their forces. Not till the Unitarians accept Jesus Christ as the Universalists do will it be advisable for the two bodies to adopt such a plan as the Unitarians have suggested. Nothing but injury could come from it to the Universalist Church or to the cause of pure Christianity. For the Universalist Church is avowedly and unequivocally and positively Christian. It has been so from the beginning. Not accepting the Trinitarian belief in his Deity, it stands firmly on the ground that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the rightful Lord of all mankind. Its first authoritative creed expressed its belief in “one God, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ;” and its latest declaration of principles affirms “the spiritual leadership and authority of His Son, Jesus Christ;” whereas the Unitarian Church expressly disavows belief in either the Lordship, the Christhood, or the Divine Sonship of Jesus. It refuses to call him the Lord, or the Christ, or the Son of God. Some of its members are willing to call him so—especially some of its older members, and of its devout women not a few—but the Unitarian body as a whole has put itself on record in the most positive manner as not believing in this fundamental postulate of Christianity.

It is not for us to determine whether Dr. Sweetser correctly interprets either the Unitarian or the Universalist position, but it appears to us certain that the question which his article raises ought to be frankly met and fully considered before any union between the two denominations is effected. The disadvantages of attempting an organic union where there is no spiritual unity as a basis have been often illustrated. If it is true that the Universalist Church centers its religion about Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the rightful Lord of all mankind, and seeks the secret of its power in the revelation and provision of divine mercy made through him, and further true that the Unitarian Church does not do this, whatever individual Unitarians may do, but regards agreement in ethical law as a sufficient basis for church unity, the difference between the two denominations is real and vital, and any organic union attempted would be unreal and would not add to the real efficiency of either body.

Share this article

[Note: an interesting work with notes about the Universalist ministerial college, cooperation with Unitarians, and how some saw the development of the 1899 "Five Principles".]

“The Universalist Convention”

The Outlook, November 4, 1899, p. 522-524

The biennial session of the Universalist General Convention at Boston, October 20–25, inclusive, was one of more than usual importance. One is impressed first with the fact that the individualistic spirit which has characterized the Universalists almost as strongly as the Unitarians is getting harnessed for co-perative effort. It was stated that more than half of the pastors have already subscribed to the covenant formed at the preceding convention in Chicago. It is worth quoting in full for its admirable spirit:

We, the ordained ministers of the Universalist Church, profoundly desiring to give full proof of our ministry by making the utmost of our united strength in the upbuilding of the divine kingdom on earth, and in order to promote a deeper unity of purpose among ourselves through the cultivation of a spirit of loyalty and subordination in the practical administration of the Church, hereby mutually covenant with each other and solemnly pledge to our beloved Church that we will, at all times, hold ourselves in due subjection to the authorities and policies of the Universalist Church, to that end subordinating when needful our personal preferences, and that we will earnestly endeavor to sustain the appoint authorities of the Church, and to carry into effect the politics adopted by the conventions.

Never before has the Universalist ministry been so closely united as now, and the prospect is hopeful that something like unanimity [sic] in this covenant is to be secured. Another point gained at this Conventionw as the initiation of what is likely to be at least a closer co-operation between the Universalist and Unitarian bodies. It has been found especially desirable in small communities, to prevent the friction and waste ensuing when those who have so much in common are kept apart by denominational jealousy or rivalry. Unitarians have long desired some plan of union, but their overtures have not been warmly received. Some influential Universalists have strongly antagonized them on theological grounds. Moreover, the Universalist churches, being twice as numerous as the Unitarian, have on that account also been less earnest for a junction of forces. At Boston, however, for the first time, each body met the other fairly half-way. The delegation appointed by the recent Unitarian Conference was cordially welcomed, and their overture was agreed to, that a committee of five from each body should consider plans for closer co-operation and report at the next meeting of each. This was opposed by Dr. Sweetser, of Philadelphia, in a speech of severe criticism upon Unitarians, but it was carried by the strong majority of 101 to 25.

Universalist Principles

Since the centennial of the Universalist Church in 1870, admission to their fellowship has been conditioned on assent to the declaration formulated at Winchester, N.H., in 1803. This occasioned demand for its revision, and after long discussion a recast of it was agreed on two years ago at Chicago. This was ratified at Boston by a vote of 132 to 10, and is now the standard of teaching in the Universalist churches. The two formularies are sufficiently brief for quotation in full, and their comparison is certainly interesting:

THE WINCHESTER PROFESSION

Article I. 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.

Article II. 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.

Article III. 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.

THE CHICAGO DECLARATION

The condition of fellowship shall be as follows :

I. The acceptance of the essential principles of the Universalist Faith, to wit: 1. The Universal Fatherhood of God. 2. The spiritual authority and leadership of His Son, Jesus Christ. 3. The trustworthiness of the Bible as containing a revelation from God. 4. The certainty of just retribution for sin. S. The final harmony of all souls with God.

II. The acknowledgment of the authority of the General Convention and assent to its laws.

The Winchester Profession is commended as containing these principles, but neither this nor any other precise form of words is required as a condition of fellowship, provided always that the principles above stated be professed.

The most obvious thing here is that the Trinitarian feature of the older form is not found in the new. But with this goes a stronger, clearer call to missionary activity than we have heard in the same quarter. The Rev. C. E. Rice declared: “Our future as a church depends largely on our foreign missions. The universality of our claims as a church involves something more than a local propaganda.” The Holy Spirit was recognized in the prayers of the Convention, if not in its formulary, and the warmth of religious feeling was unmistakable, in the spirit of loyalty to Jesus and unity with all children of God. “The work of the Universalist Church,” said the President of the Convention, Mr. Charles L. Hutchinson, of Chicago, “is to preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to win men to God and righteousness.” One sees a significant contrast between the obloquy and persecution visited upon the Rev. John Murray, when he introduced Universalism at Gloucester, Mass., a century ago, and the fraternal greetings given at Boston in the interdenominational meeting. Dr. Abbott’s address on that occasion, “Why I am Not a Universalist,” will appear in full in our next issue. The Convention expects to raise a large “Twentieth Century Fund ” for denominational purposes, and to hold its next session at Buffalo.

Share this article

My intent was to use my long-standing Boy in the Bands blog for short and light things, and start moving to more substantial and theological work here — and to make my own named blog the standard bearer.

Well, Boy in the Bands has the readership and light subjects — and denominational ones, which are often quite heavy — make a more interesting hobby. And I don’t have time to write sermons.

After three months of silence here, I should change or put it on ice. I’ll choose to change first; I can always stop it later (as I’ve done with other blogs.)

So I’ll go back to my web roots: transcribing important Universalist documents, perhaps now with more of a curatorial eye. And if that prompts me to write a sermon, so much the better.

Share this article

So it’s been two days since I began my think-piece of gathering an “instant” church. And now a dose of heresy. Why do churches need membership?

In our own history, the parish or society had members based on financial sponsorship, and for a good swath of the history that meant pew rental or ownership. (It’s very easy to have a creedless system on that basis, even though the putative creedlessness of Universalism is grossly overstated. More about that later.) Both the Universalists and Unitarians were slow and often neglectful to nurture the core of the professed believers — the church proper, as opposed to the parish or society — and thus it’s easy to characterize the apparently secular mode of church government we enjoy. (This is most evident where there is a church that goes with a parish or society, or where they were at one point fused. Look for deacons as an institution. And as far as I can tell, the presence of the church proper, with a liturgy, are the best indicators of whether an older congregation stayed Christian.)

That said, I’m inspired — at least provisionally — by the distinction in membership made my the Uniting Church in Australia, which in its new (October 2009, pending approval; PDF) regulations distinguish between adherents and members. (The UCA distinction between baptized, confirmed and members-in-associationmay be less helpful in this context.)

ADHERENTS
1.1.22 In addition to a roll of members, a roll of persons who, though not members or members-in-
association, regularly attend the services of worship and share in the life of the Church shall
be kept. Such persons shall be known as adherents of the Church.
PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1.23 (a)    Adherents may attend and speak at meetings of the Congregation but shall not have
the right to vote.
(b)    Adherents may be appointed as members of committees of the Congregation.
TRANSFER OF ADHERENTS
1.1.24 In the event of an adherent moving beyond the bounds of a Congregation, the secretary of
the Church Council shall forward an appropriate letter informing the secretary of the Church
Council related to the new Congregation of the change.

Not a radical thought — many congregations have more or less formal “friends” — but the enrollment of adherents can be a useful social tool. First, “membership” has less of a hold on people than in generations past, and membership-oriented participation will surely discourage otherwise included people. Second, for membership-minded persons, it provides a manageable step towards membership without over-committing and without the risk of letting a person’s interest wither for trying to get the timing right.

Thinking both about historic Universalist polity of fellowship (though previously applied only to ministers and whole congregations) and Free and Open Source communities’ concepts of membership, I think this new church ought to have a fellowship committee, and that the membership it extends should

• be limited to a term, and then subject to renewal, thus addressing the phantom member problem.
• be based on a recognition of the support of the particular congregation — and thus a reason to extend policy-making power through a vote –  and not an endorsement of a particular spiritual state, which exists independently of church membership.
• be extended on a basis of a “portfolio” of commonly-known community standards, including expressions of spiritual maturity and theological self-understanding, commitment of an appropriate level of financial support, a track record of participation and statement — I’d say “study plan” but that seems too academic — of faith goals the membership candidate wants to achieve under care of the church.

This means membership will be less common, but — I hope — more valuable, and should spare the new church from dilettantes with voting rights.

Share this article

Yesterday’s installment in my think-piece was all about as much as a threatened church planter could do in a day, only concerned the institutional set-up and was theologically-neutral. But very quickly you have to think about what your church stands for and how it stands for it.

This is where I think Unitarian Universalist church planting runs into the rocks. With our history of the geographical parish, there’s a presumption that there’s one parish that accommodates all the would-be Unitarian Universalists in its area. (You see it in our church naming conventions.) Which is exactly backwards to preaching the Gospel within a particular tradition and with a particular charism (gift) and gathering people to that church. Little wonder then that Boston — which was outside the parochial system — had and has a wider diversity of Unitarian and Universalist churches than anywhere else. Let’s consider Boston as “the metropolitan model” in contrast to the parochial model and work thence.

I was brought up thinking theologically that Maria Harris, the religious educator, could do no wrong. Her curriculum for a church’s self-expression is certainly a great place to start. (The Unitarian Universalist Association has, in fact, published a guide by Gaia Brown about Harris’s Fashion Me a People which may be downloaded as a PDF here. I do fault it for replaying the we’re-not-Christian-we’re-different saw again. Is it so hard to accept a Christian’s scholarship without reacting defensively?) This means I’d want to get a standard of worship down.

Easy peasy. I’d choose the simplified Protestant liturgy seen across the mainstream. “Emergent” worship practices — while hip right now — are likely to age as badly as parachute pants. Since hymnals are heavy and expensive, I’d forgo them in favor a hymn printing license from one of the larger non-”praise” licensees, like OneLicense. Because so much of the liturgical reform since the 1980s has worked under the unspoken rule of “more words is better” I would seek out slightly older, leaner texts to shape worship. In a move away from liberal Christian practice, this would mean looking before the Vatican II-inspired changes and also ditching the Revised Common Lectionary (and its assumption of church member who never miss worship and who can follow a three-year arc.) Give me, instead, the briefer traditional one-year lectionary and an opportunity to learn from the Old Testament in a more interactive environment.  And before you ask: yes Unitarians and Universalists did once use this lectionary and the vast majority of the matching collects. The Anglican church in Melanesia has a version of the collects (with that lectionary) in simplified but dignified modern English. And they’re in the public domain.

Share this article

A mental exercise, in the spirit of a bad 1980s film. I must organize a church — the promise of a fairly successful church — by Sunday . . . Or Else.

The reason for this exercise is obvious. Unitarian Universalists (and other liberals) aren’t good at gathering churches, even though successive generations of new churches are necessary for a healthy ecosystem and are the best way of attracting newcomers. We treat them as the sort of thing we just have — little wonder; next to the Episcopalians we probably have the largest number of state-sponsored church foundations in the United States — or which spontaneously arise from groups of well-cultivated laypersons. The sun has set on both phenomena, and today we grow churches that limp towards a membership of thirty or forty, but rarely more. Indeed, those that don’t shrivel on the vine simply rot. So . . .

First, I pull out my address book and call my friends (many ministers; some not), asking for prayers, seeing if any would be willing to be an initial incorporator — no way I’m going to have an unincorporated church — and see if they would be willing to consult on the project. Then, as church organizer, I browse to the state- (or District-) appropriate page on the Legal Guide of the Citizen Media Law Project, to see what the incorporation and other requirements are. Fortunately, there are often more lenient options for churches than media organizations. So I work through the list and get the Federal Employer Identification Number and download incorporation details.

I brainstorm some names — running them past my friends for feedback, with a consideration of how it would be abbreviated — and register the appropriate .org of the best two or three using a domain registrar like NameCheap. I get a handy email address from Google, and with it email the UUA District Executive and an insurance agent like one from Church Mutual, and introduce myself. I use the email address to get accounts, using a short-format version of the church name, on Facebook and Twitter for later outreach use.

Next, I consider where the meeting Sunday will take place. On such short notice, I would pick the best I could afford: convenient in the mode of transportation I imagine people would use, and no farther than an average workday commute from the group I’m trying to reach. A hotel meeting-room will suffice.

And more tomorrow.

Share this article

I’m diving back into the roots of Universalism, so I’m reading two books.

The first is Ann Lee Bressler’s The Universalist Movement in America, 1770-1880, which I’m sick to say now sells for $85 new. (It was even remaindered for a while.)

The other is one of my treasures: the 1811 “pirate” edition of Hosea Ballou’s Treatise on Atonement. This still has his home-spun turns of phrase, largely eliminated in the standard 1835 edition (which stayed in print until 1986, and which therefor a number of living persons still have.) Because it’s rare, if I run across interesting passages, I’ll post them here.

But I’m a slow reader, so any reportage will come in fits and starts.

Share this article