MP3 Download (Click Here)
* * * *
-->
This is a Unitarian congregation. But this was not built as a Unitarian Meeting
House.
The first Service held in this building, in December
1716, was held by a General Baptist meeting.
We know from the history that it was most likely led by John Calverly,
who was the leading General Baptist Elder here at the time. But even he wasn’t the first leader of the
congregation.
That honour falls to William Jeffery, who first led this
congregation, this group of people with a continuous connection from today,
this morning, all the way back to 1640.
Each of us knows, or knew, someone who was in this congregation before
them. And so did they, And so did
they.
All the way back to that first gathering in 1640. And, on the way, here at the newly built
Meeting House in 1716.
I find that quite amazing really.
1716 was a time when non-conformity was, in many places,
illegal. By then tolerated, but still
illegal. In 1715, just one year before,
at least 30 Dissenting chapels were destroyed in the ‘Church and King’ riots which
were sparked by a continuing conspiracy of a connection of dissent to
treason.
As I mentioned before, the members of the congregation
that met in 1716 were General Baptists – a liberal wing of the Baptist movement
– too liberal to be tolerated by the growing hardline Calvinist Particular
Baptists – and this congregation, like many other General Baptist
congregations, turned toward Unitarianism around 100 years later.
These heretical people, as your predecessors undoubtedly
were known, would have seen this building as a sanctuary for more than just
Sunday worship. This was, and is, their
building – a second home for its members.
A place to meet like-minded souls for social time as well as
worship. Just as it remains today.
And we retain many links to our past.
We were, as I mentioned, a General Baptist Meeting
House. Now, the General Baptists were,
as I also said, dreadful heretics. They
believed that it was appropriate for them to read the Bible in English, and
interpret what they read there for themselves.
Not necessarily agreeing with other authorities. Thinking for themselves. How terrible is that!
Even worse, most General Baptists determined that there
was nothing in the Bible that indicated God would be selective in who was saved
at the end of time, or after death. They
read God as a God of love. So of course
everyone would be saved.
This, again was not what the authorities liked to hear –
everyone saved, all equal, no hierarchy, thinking for themselves.
Dreadful.
Eventually, General Baptism died out. The Particular Baptists – with an
authoritarian stance on the notion of salvation – became the dominant Baptist
strand.
But we retain some links to that wonderful piece of
history. As a General Baptist
congregation, this congregation was a member of the General Baptist Assembly –
an umbrella organisation, founded in 1648, bringing almost all General Baptist
congregations together – providing support for ministry, community and
solidarity in the face of oppression.
Astonishingly, the General Baptist Assembly is still
around, and has been in continuous existence since 1648. It still meets annually, in London, each May,
and it still provides grants towards settled ministry in those remaining,
former General Baptist congregations.
There are, sadly, just 15 member congregations to the
Assembly now – and Bessels Green – here – is still a member. Of course, as I mentioned, there are no
practising General Baptist congregations left.
It is, in fact, the case that all 15 member congregations of the General
Baptist Assembly are now Unitarian congregations – 15 of the 174. It is not true to say that all General
Baptist congregations across the country became Unitarian – but it is the case
that many did.
And they still support each other. Recognising the strength in numbers. They still gather. And what is more, they still agree to help
the weakest. The Assembly members have
recently agreed a new policy whereby the largest grants it gives are to the
congregations that have least money, and want to spend what little they have on
ministry, in whatever form that takes.
Just as this congregation gathered to support one another
in adversity and against oppression all those years ago, the Assembly still
meets, and still looks out for the weaker members. Those that need a bit more help than the
others.
For me, this starts to explain how and why these
congregations became Unitarian. It’s a
bit chicken-and-egg, but this sense of community and independence in matters of
religion remains important to us today.
Unitarians, like the General Baptists, were considered
heretics for many years. Still are in
some quarters. Many Unitarians in the
1500s and before were killed for their beliefs.
And they were still being imprisoned in the 1600s.
Yet they persisted.
Why? And in what way might we
consider ourselves the natural heirs of this mantle of dissent?
Unitarians like to think for themselves.
Following in the footsteps of those dissenting
Protestants who insisted in interpreting the Bible in a way that made sense to
them, we continue to aspire to freedom of thought and freedom of belief.
That, for me, is what makes Unitarianism special – and it
is why it can be so hard to explain to others exactly what we mean by
Unitarianism.
As Cliff Reed’s book title says, 'Unitarian. What's That?'
Freedom to think.
Freedom to believe.
We are lucky. We
are, generally, people who are willing to listen to religious and philosophical
ideas that will sometimes conflict with our previous thoughts. We are prepared to change our view on
religious matters. And we are, usually,
still welcome as Unitarians no matter what.
For Unitarians are allowed to explore, to test, to change, to draw their
own conclusions.
I’m not saying for one minute that members of all other
churches are unable to think for themselves.
That would be ridiculous. But I
am saying that the freedom to question the answers is a right that we must
thank our predecessors for.
I went to St Paul’s Cathedral earlier this week, in
London, to hear a speaker from the US.
Part of the Cathedral’s recent series of talks by ‘new Christian thinkers’,
a series called 'The Case for God'. The
speaker this week was Brian McLaren.
Brian was raised as a fundamentalist Christian in the US, and was taught very clearly that the Bible supports all manner of
repressive and unloving ways of life.
One of those extreme churches we all see and hear on the television and
radio.
As a child, Brian believed it all. Until he went to college to study
English. As an English student, he began
instead to look at the Bible in an open and critical way. He started to look for new interpretations.
He became more open.
He saw the Bible was not as clear-cut as his parents and his church had
told him.
His talk this week, to a large (I guess) mostly Christian
crowd, was on the need to read the Bible in a different way. To stop reading and using the Bible to defend
illiberal and repressive acts, but instead to read and use the Bible to support
acts of loving kindness in the world. To
recognise the stories as images of creation, liberation and reconciliation.
To use the Bible to bring transformational change and
justice to the world, in the form of loving kindness.
He was unashamedly Christian in his approach – but he did
not mention once the notion of atonement of sin, nor the Resurrection, nor the
idea that Christ died for us. Nor did he
believe any of the ‘rules’ in the Bible should be left unchallenged. They were written in the context of the
time. If, in the modern day, we cannot
see them as messages of creation, liberation or reconciliation, then lets just
drop them and move on. Brian was clear
that, from his reading and interpretation of the Bible, there was nothing
repressive or judgmental in Jesus’ actions and words. How can anybody, therefore, use the Bible for
repressive purposes.
This approach rang true for me. Here was a man using sacred texts – the words
of a people struggling to explain the purpose of life. Yet he was prepared to read them in new, loving
ways. Freedom of thought. Freedom to interpret. Freedom of belief.
I was able to speak to Mr McClaren after his talk. I explained I was a Unitarian (and whispered
he should keep it quiet lest I be ejected from St Paul’s). He laughed, put his hand on my arm, and
whispered back that the Unitarians were amongst his friends and supporters back
in the US.
Well, this is all well and good. We are able to interpret words for
ourselves. And we believe this is a
right for all people. And it is. But what is the true value of this?
The commentator Morris Joseph put it well,
‘the test of a person’s worth
is not their theology, but their life’
Another way of putting this, perhaps, is to say that we
need not be concerned how others interpret things – we should be
concerned only that people are doing the very best they can to live a life of
loving kindness.
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Pagan, Ba’hai,
Humanist, Atheist, and so many, many more.
It matters not what the core text or scripture is – if there is one –
rather it matters how these are interpreted in a loving and open way, to
support participation in building a world more fair, and more just.
This then is how I believe we should celebrate the
Anniversary of this Meeting House.
We must recognise the value that those who stood up for
freedom of belief and freedom of reason have brought to our world. As I said before, we are the lucky ones. We are able to gather and worship freely. Our predecessors, General Baptist and
Unitarian, have always supported the idea that God’s love is bestowed on all –
in modern practical terms, there are no people that deserve to be shunned or
treated unfairly by society. For the
General Baptists, God saves all. For the
early Unitarians, God is One, and we are all brothers and sisters in that single
God. For modern Unitarians, we have
evolved our freedoms to encompass new ideas, new ways to live in the modern
world, the worth of all people and all sacred beliefs.
We are celebrating today the 296th Anniversary
of this Meeting House. Yet, as John Andrew
Storey puts it so well in the final part of our second reading:
The church is me, the Church is
you,
Not mortar, brick and stone;
It is with all who love the
true,
And where true love is shown.
Mark Morrison-Reed picked this up too with the promise that
it is the church that assures us that we are not struggling for justice on our
own, but as members of a larger community.
We must surely honour all those who have gone before us
here by continuing their loving approach to the community and to the world. That is the living memorial we can hope to
provide. As Brian McClaren put it, let
us create, liberate and reconcile with love.
Let us endeavor to ensure that all our actions, all our thoughts, words
and deeds are carried out in a loving manner, without malice and with the aim
of peace and togetherness.
I finish with a quote from Doug Pagitt, the author of a
book called ‘Church in the Inventive Age’:
“The
past is not our standard. It is not the
test of whether something is right or good.
But it's also not an albatross we need to shuck off as quickly as
possible. The past is our constant
companion. It is always with us. The question is what do we do with it -
return to it, let it rule, or take its best efforts with us into the future?”
Happy Anniversary.
No comments:
Post a Comment