Useless Tokenism & Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards (1703 – 1758) is one of the most prominent missionaries and Reformed theologians to have ever lived. His most notable sermon, which characterises his ministry, was ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.’ In Conservative Reformed Christian circles he is held up as an exemplary figure – ‘a great man of God’.

As bold and courageous as he may well have been in the pulpit, he, like many of his contemporaries, was a slave owner. Of course he was a compassionate slave owner, a slave owner who preached on the virtues of treating one’s slaves fairly, and yet he never directed his anger or his considerably religious clout at undermining the institution of slavery itself.

No doubt his token gestures and attempts to modify some of the more unpleasant practices within the institution eased his conscience on the issue. However, had he been bolder, had he been willing, willing even to be a figure of derision, what then?

Edwards must have felt as if he was doing the right thing, he probably felt as if he was a step in the right direction. But really he was part of the problem. His very persona as an advocate for the bondsman made him an enemy of them. Such tokenism does not undermine the institution, rather it further legitimises it. As such, tokenism of this kind or support of the oppressive institution are really one and the same.

So, are we then propping up the system? Are our token gestures legitimising what we claim to stand against? There is but one way to change a system – to ignore it. To live and be as if the way you think it should be is the way it is now.

These were the truly revolutionary figures in the abolitionist movement of the 18th century: not the preachers, or politicians who bartered for small victories, but those who lived alongside their brothers and sisters as equals, and suffered the scoffers. 

Creeds and Liberty

Naturally the essence of creedal denominations necessitates the impulse towards conformity to one degree or another, sometimes very explicitly, and sometimes very subtly. There is after all a party line, and however compassionately and gently it is done, in due course all are cajoled into place. This impulse diminishes our sacrosanct personhood, and our right to self-determine.

We Unitarians value above all else the liberty to be guided by our own conscience and free enquiry, to enter into the open market place of ideas without ulterior motives being hung above our heads. Take for example the orthodox Christian’s trending mantra ‘Belong, before you believe.’ To belong is to be fully embraced as the person that you are, but how can one truly belong to a group when it never loses sight of its underlining goal: to have you conform to certain precepts.

Of course within the flux of group dynamics, no church can really claim to be free of unnamed motives when it comes to its prospective members, but the Unitarians strive to put the questioning soul at the heart of its mission. This mission is to respect true integrity, and to always name and oppose our human propensity to inflict conformity upon others.

The great joy of Unitarianism is that we might act as agents of peace, kindness, and tolerance in this world, all the while co-journeying as equals with our brothers and sisters, truly valuing what such an equality means, being vulnerable, doubting, and confused right alongside one another.