Unitarianism's Original Sin:
The Early Church's Fight Against Religious Freedom
SCOTT PIEPHO
8/21/11
So you may have noticed a couple of things about the title of this sermon. First off, it says “Unitarians” instead
of “Unitarian Universalists.” That is deliberate. This is a story about the Unitarians only. And it is so because
ultimately it is a story of politically powerful churches using that power less than magnanimously. At the
founding of our country Unitarians were politically powerful; Universalists were not.
You also may have noticed that bit about original sin. I came across an article about our faith recently which
cited a service in a UU church in Baltimore in which a guest preacher apologized for the word “God” appearing
in a hymn. I don't believe in apologizing for the word “God” appearing . . . in church. So yeah I was a little
provocative in the other direction.
But I do want to refine that thought a bit.
One of the many times Rabbi Robert Horowitz took this pulpit he mentioned that one Hebrew word, “Het” that
is translated to “sin” means “to miss the mark.” So sin in that sense means to fall short of one's aspirations,
values or goals.
It's worth noting that other words that translate to “sin” are about moral turpitude and such, and that some of the
failings of the early church could be called moral failings. But if you don't want to go that far, think of “sin” as
“het” and we should be fine.
The story of the less than admirable behavior of Unitarians at the birth of the nation comes form Rev. Forrest
Church's remarkable book “So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and
State.” The book offers the answer to the question so often posed by those who want to weaken the separation of
church and state: Was the United States of America founded as a Christian nation?
By and large it is a bad idea to let a debate hinge on the answer to a question posed by your adversary, and this is
a case in point. Because the answer to the question is: “It's complicated.”
We can make it simple by answering with the text of the Constitution which states that there shall be no religious
test for office, prohibits federal establishment of religion and guarantees of free exercise. That's the sum total of
what our founding document says about religion.
But when we drill deeper than that, like when we look at how people actually lived at the founding to give us
some guidance about what was meant by statements like “Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion,” things get complicated.
It's complicated in the first place because a lot of those who voted to ratify the Constitution did not entirely agree
on what they were ratifying.
It is also complicated by the fact that for understanding the Bill of Rights, prevailing beliefs at the time of the
founding are only part of the story. The Bill of Rights as originally written only applied to the Federal
government. After the Civil War the nation passed the Reconstruction Amendments including the 13th which
would eventually be read as applying all of those rights guarantees to the states as well. Which means that intent
at that time is at least as important for interpreting the Bill of Rights.
Finally it is complicated by the fact that after ratifying the Constitution the founders didn't always act
consistently with its provisions. And that is the story we are here to tell. The lack of respect for religious liberty
was part of a general retreat from the ideals of individual rights, particularly during the administration of John
Adams.
The group in charge at that time – they weren't yet what we would call a party – were the Federalists. The
Federalist's geographical base was generally the northeast. They favored a relatively strong national government
but were skeptical of individual liberties. At the same time, they were far more likely to be against slavery.
Rising in opposition to the Federalists were the Republicans or the Democratic Republicans – in many measures
the first organized political party. They were more likely to be Southern, favored greater autonomy for states
and supported slavery.
As Rev. Church notes, churches played a pivotal role in this political contest. He writes, “The most dependable
gauge of religious-political affiliations during the early Republic was any given denomination's insider or
outsider status in society. Outgroups tended to be politically progressive, ingroups politically conservative. The
established churches (Congregational, Unitarian, and to a lesser extent, Episcopalian) were predominantly
Federalist in their voting patterns. Dissenting Protestants (Baptist, Methodist, etc) along with Catholics and Jews
by and large voted Republican.”
Observe the difficulty trying to describe the religio-political landscape at the time using our current political
vocabulary. Conservatives in the north favored a strong Federal government and opposed slavery. Progressives
in the south were pro-slavery and pro-state’s rights.
One odd consistency with modern politics was fear and loathing toward France. The Federalists were concerned
both that the chaos and terror of the French Revolution would be replicated here and about France as a rival in
the hemisphere.
As they grew increasingly uneasy about the excesses of the French Revolution, the Federalists grew similarly
skeptical of individual rights. This was one impetus, among many, to maintain a system of established churches
– that is churches supported with state tax money. Adams for one believed for much of his life that tax supported
churches were essential for the nation to survive.
In his draft of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights he had written:
“As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon
piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the
institution of the public worship of God . . . the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their
legislature with power to authorize and require . . . the several towns . . . or religious societies to make suitable
provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and
maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall
not be made voluntarily.”
These positions were not without consequences. At the same time the states were maintaining established
churches, they were also suppressing religious dissenters, up to, for example, executing Quakers for being
Quakers.
The worst retreat from the ideal of liberty was found in the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act forbid
publishing “False, scandalous and malicious” writings against a list government officials, that did not include the
Vice President who at that time was the Republican Thomas Jefferson. The Sedition Act was quite clearly aimed
at Republicans and in fact all ten prosecutions under the Act targeted Republican journalists and politicians.
In the end, cooler heads prevailed. The Federalist's overreach help ensure their defeat in the election of 1800.
This despite the admonitions from Federalist preachers – including Unitarians – and the votes of Federalist
parishioners.
Presidents Thomas Jefferson restored respect for individual liberty – for White people anyway. By the time of
the Reconstruction Amendments every state had disestablished the established churches and the understanding of
the religion clauses in the First Amendment was that they included a substantive protection against government
sponsorship of religion.
So what are we to make of this story, aside from “Wow, bizarro world.” And what relevance does it have in
modern church/state debates?
Having already committed the . . . questionable act . . . of talking about sin in a UU church, I'm going to double
down and quote the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:13. “No temptation has overtaken you except what is
common to us all.”
I will confess that I did not dig this up myself. It was quoted by the liberal evangelical blogger Fred Clark who
goes on to argue that “If you’re a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that’s
problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and
yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved.”
The story of the Unitarians of early America is this lesson. We think now that working against religious liberty
is always something the other guys do. But that's not so.
The Unitarians, along with Congregationalists and other faiths descended from the Puritans, knew that their faith
traditions could not exist back in England, yet they also could not see past their own self-interest. They aligned
themselves with the Federalists and their excesses because they could. They succumbed to the temptation to use
power to their selfish advantage and to bend others to their way of thinking.
When we talk about church/state controversies today, we can fall into traps on either side.
One temptation is to avoid confrontation. To treat those who believe that America is a Christian nation as having
belief different from ours but just as legitimate as any of us.
But the ideas on the other side have real implications and thus potentially real consequences. As one example,
the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer takes the “America is Christian” idea to its next logical steps,
arguing, for example, that we should no longer allow mosques to be built and that we should require all
immigrants to convert to Christianity.
The other trap is to make the entire conversation about how We Are Right and They Are Wrong. It does little
good politically to end the conversation there and, more importantly for this occasion, it is poor spiritual
practice.
What we have before us today offers one way between these two traps. We start by acknowledging that what the
religious right is doing is succumbing to a universal temptation. And if we all believe that the fundamental
principle of this nation is respect for individual liberty, it is a temptation to fall short of that ideal.
And we can understand the temptation. Because it's universal. And we've been there.
Acknowledging this universal temptation also tells us that we need to clean up our own house. We are very good
at welcoming people with non-Christian beliefs or no beliefs. We do poorly welcoming people with Christian
beliefs. Partly the problem is the difficulty of simultaneously honoring Christian beliefs and honoring the
experience of those who come to our church to heal from the hurt done in Christian churches in which they were
raised.
But a big part of the problem is that really respecting the beliefs that are different from our own is a very hard
mark to hit.
Having provocatively titled this sermon, let me disavow one implication. I do not believe we have a duty to
atone for the sins of others. But I do believe we as a faith could do more to make the case for religious liberty.
I'm all for the current focus of the “Standing on the Side of Love” campaign. But when it comes to our own
religious liberty, our church tends to avoid the confrontation.
There are few social issues more vexing or important than interfaith tolerance. Perhaps this is the way through –
rather than fighting against people who are wrong, we can compassionately approach people who have lost their
way. And if we can use this understanding to solve our own conundrums, we can witness that experience to the
world.
After all, finding a way to do better is the real reason for acknowledging our sins.