Below you’ll find the text of two sermons (with some annotations) published in 1822 by Rev. Jacob Flint of Cohasset, Massachusetts. While these sermons might appear to be of little interest to anyone except students of Cohasset history, they also contain some interesting theological content for those interested in the battles between the Unitarians and Trinitarians in 1820s Massachusetts.
Two years after Flint gave these two sermons, in December of 1823, he preached two sermons stating in no uncertain terms that trinitarian beliefs were supported neither by the Bible nor by human reason. The 1823 sermons precipitated a split in the Cohasset congregation. In the present sermons, preached in December of 1821, Flint claims that a couple of his predecessors were Unitarians in thought if not in name; in addition, he makes it clear that he agrees with his allegedly Unitarian predecessors. Anyone who heard the 1821 sermons could not have been surprised by the 1823 sermons.
Interestingly, the second of the 1821 sermons includes a long footnote in which Flint carefully outlines how the Cohasset congregation had lived in unanimity for most of a century. He must have been aware of the trinitarian leanings of some of his congregants; was this his way of trying to keep them from splitting the congregation?
I also noticed the way Flint erases the Indians from his account of Cohasset history, confining any mention of them to a short section labelled “Curiosities.” He never mentions how there were Indians who were members of the church in the mid-18th century. As it happens, I’ve just been reading Jean O’Brien’s book Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians out of Existence in New England (Univ. of Minnesota: 2010), which examines the ways in which the authors of local histories in New England created the myth of the “vanishing Indian.” Flint’s sermons are early examples of that myth.
So there’s more going on in these two sermons than just boring local history!
Notes on the text: OCR-generated text found online was checked against a physical copy of the sermons in the archives of First Parish of Cohasset, and a number of corrections were made. Footnotes in the original have been numbered consecutively, with numbers enclosed in square brackets, and moved to the end of each section (Discourse I, Discourse II, and Geographical Sketch). A few editorial notes have been added, enclosed in square brackets. Pages breaks in the original have been indicated by enclosing “page X” in square brackets. One or two long quotations have been placed in separate paragraphs.
The 1823 sermons: Earlier this year, I put Flint’s 1823 Unitarian sermons (the ones which precipitated the split with Second Congregational Church) on this blog: the first sermon — the second sermon.
Although I’m not a philosopher, I was trained in philosophy. So when I hear arguments, I tend to want to ask some questions about any given argument. What’s the origin of this argument — is it a perennial argument, or did it begin at some point in time? What’s the purpose of this argument? Since most arguments do not reduce to Boolean logic, what are some of the diverse positions taken in this argument?
Currently, there are arguments in pop culture about sex and gender. Pop culture usually reduces these arguments to a simple binary: traditionalists vs. progressives. But even a cursory examination shows that the so-called “progressive” camp includes a diversity of opinions.
Especially useful are the tidbits of intellectual history scattered through this essay. Take, for example, the origin of the current distinction between sex and gender, which dates only to the 1960s:
“…Psychologists writing on transsexuality were the first to employ gender terminology in this sense. Until the 1960s, ‘gender’ was often used to refer to masculine and feminine words, like le and la in French. However, in order to explain why some people felt that they were ‘trapped in the wrong bodies’, the psychologist Robert Stoller (1968) began using the terms ‘sex’ to pick out biological traits and ‘gender’ to pick out the amount of femininity and masculinity a person exhibited. Although (by and large) a person’s sex and gender complemented each other, separating out these terms seemed to make theoretical sense allowing Stoller to explain the phenomenon of transsexuality: transsexuals’ sex and gender simply don’t match. Along with psychologists like Stoller, feminists found it useful to distinguish sex and gender. This enabled them to argue that many differences between women and men were socially produced and, therefore, changeable….” [Section 1.2]
So “gender” is a relatively recent concept. But our concept of “sex” is also fairly recent:
“…Our concept of sex is said to be a product of social forces in the sense that what counts as sex is shaped by social meanings. Standardly [sic], those with XX-chromosomes, ovaries that produce large egg cells, female genitalia, a relatively high proportion of ‘female’ hormones, and other secondary sex characteristics (relatively small body size, less body hair) count as biologically female. Those with XY-chromosomes, testes that produce small sperm cells, male genitalia, a relatively high proportion of ‘male’ hormones and other secondary sex traits (relatively large body size, significant amounts of body hair) count as male. This understanding is fairly recent. The prevalent scientific view from Ancient Greeks until the late 18th century, did not consider female and male sexes to be distinct categories with specific traits; instead, a ‘one-sex model’ held that males and females were members of the same sex category. Females’ genitals were thought to be the same as males’ but simply directed inside the body; ovaries and testes (for instance) were referred to by the same term and whether the term referred to the former or the latter was made clear by the context…. It was not until the late 1700s that scientists began to think of female and male anatomies as radically different moving away from the ‘one-sex model’ of a single sex spectrum to the (nowadays prevalent) ‘two-sex model’ of sexual dimorphism.” [Section 3.2; emphasis is mine]
Thus, our current understanding of “biological sex” is not an ageless, universal concept. To use Theodore Parker’s terminology, “sex” and “gender,” then, are transient concepts rather than permanent concepts. All this is useful to know when someone tells you, with great sincerity, that a certain definition of “sex” or “gender” is the one true and correct definition. That may be true at this moment, but it was not necessarily true in the past, and it won’t necessarily be true in the future.
None of this should distract us from the very real injustices that stem from widely-held concepts of “sex” and “gender.” But this may helps explain why we humans seem to take such a long time to achieve justice. Remember what Parker said about justice:
“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.”
Indeed, our eye reaches but a little ways along the arc of the moral universe. And nor can we yet “calculate the curve.”
Still recovering from a mild concussion. As the brain fog clears, I’ve been reading Dashiell Hammett, one of the great philosophical novelists of the early twentieth century. In an introduction to a collection of Hammett’s stories, Steven Marcus discusses the famous “Flitcraft parable,” contained in The Maltese Falcon, in which a man named Flitcraft is almost killed by a falling beam. His narrow escape from death causes Flitcraft to completely abandon his old life, but within five years he has settled down to almost exactly the same life, just in another city with another wife. Marcus writes:
[The parable] is about among other things is the ethical irrationality of existence, the ethical unintelligibility of the world. For Flitcraft the falling beam ‘had taken the lid off life and let him look at the works.’ The works are that life is inscrutable, opaque, irresponsible, and arbitrary — that human existence does not correspond in its actuality to the way we live it. For most of us live as if existence itself were ordered, ethical, and rational. As a direct result of his realization in experience that it is not, Flitcraft leaves his wife4 and children and goes off. He acts irrationally and at random, in accordance with the nature of existence. When after a couple of years of wandering aimlessly about he decides to establish a new life, he simply reproduces the old one he had supposedly repudiated and abandoned; that is, he behaves again as if life were orderly, meaningful, and rational, and ‘adjusts’ to it…. Here we come upon the unfathomable and most mysteriously irrational part of it all — how despite everything we have learned and everything we know, [humans] will persist in behaving and trying to behave sanely, rationally, sensibly, and responsibly. And we will continue to persist even when we know that there is no logical or metaphysical, no discoverable or demonstrable reason for doing so…. The contradiction is not ethical alone; it is metaphysical as well….”
So, what’s the meaning of life according to Hammett? There isn’t any, except what you make.
Recently, I’ve had a number of conversations bemoaning the long slow decline of UU World magazine, the denominational magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Ongoing budget cuts at the UUA have cut many departments, and UU World is no exception. In the past two decades, staff has been cut, print publication has dropped from six times a year to twice a year, and online publication is less frequent.
UU World may have hit its peak as a glossy publication in the 2000s. Chris Walton, one of the sharpest commentators on the UU scene, was on the editorial staff (Chris later became editor of the publication), while the editor-in-chief was Tom Stites, a long-time journalist who had been part of two Pulitzer Prize-winning teams. Chris started his own design business. But what happened to Tom Stites?
I happened to run across Tom Stites when I was researching an upcoming series of sermons on challenges to democracy. It turns out that Stites is now the president of the Banyan Project, a nonprofit organization working to create community new outlets based on a coop-ownership model. It’s an ambitious project — they’ve even designed a new software platform for community news outlets based on a coop model.
This is a super interesting project. The demise of local newspapers remains one of the biggest challenges to democracy in the United States today — just as the echo chambers of social media remain one of the biggest threats to democracy today. If you live in a local news desert, it’s very hard to learn what’s going on in local government, and very hard to make informed decisions as a voter and as a citizen. A coop model may not work for every news desert, but at this point we need as many options as possible — anything that can help to eradicate news deserts is A Good Thing.
Definitely worth taking a look at the Banyan Project website.
In an earlier post, I published the first of a series of two sermons preached by Rev. Jacob Flint here in Cohasset in December, 1823. In these sermons, Flint proclaimed publicly that he supported the Unitarian side of the Unitarian / Trinitarian controversy then raging through eastern Massachusetts churches of the Standing Order. Not surprisingly, once their minister openly espoused Unitarianism, the Trinitarian sympathizers in the congregation left to form their own Trinitarian church.
I’m finally getting around to publishing the second sermon, the one that Flint preached in the afternoon. I can’t help wondering how the Trinitarian sympathizers responded after hearing the first sermon, the one in the morning. Did they gather together during the lunch break to talk? Did some of them refuse to return for the afternoon sermon? If they did return, were they angry as they sat there listening to their minister tell them that their cherished theological beliefs were irrational, non-Biblical, and even unchristian? And how did the Unitarian sympathizers in the congregation feel? — were they perhaps relieved that at last their minister came out and stated openly the beliefs that probably everyone in the small town of Cohasset knew he held?
It turns out to be a fairly well written sermon. Today’s Unitarian Christians might even find it to be of mild theological interest.
But I suspect most of the interest this sermon holds today is its historical interest. It’s a sermon that cause an open rupture between Unitarians and Trinitarians in one small town. It is in a sense a microcosm of the larger theological and institutional battle raging through organized religion in eastern Massachusetts. Flint was not arguing about abstract theological issues; he was arguing with people that he knew well, people he saw every day. His sermon might even cause us to reflect on the power of words and the power of thought, and how words and thought can lead to open conflict and (according to tradition) acrimony as well.
Original page breaks are noted in square brackets, like this: [p. 14]. Footnotes from the original have been numbered and placed as endnotes. A few editorial notes have been included, always enclosed in square brackets.
Discourse in which the Doctrine of the Trinity is examined…
by Jacob Flint (Christian Register: Boston, 1824).
[p. 11] PART II
[1] Thes[salonians] v. 21. — “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
The Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, contain, as I attempted to show you in the morning, a system of doctrines and morals admirable for their simplicity and truth, and a most necessary guide for men to faith, duty, and happiness. They are in the highest degree profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. But I had to remark, that unhappily for the peace of society, and good will of christians towards each other, these sacred writings had not long been in the hands of fallible and and erring mortals, before they were made to teach, for doctrines, the inventions and commandments of men. These inventions, or spurious doctrines, became the source of almost endless dispute, animosity and persecution among christians. For these dreadful effects, however, there is no blame that can justly be attached to the gospel, because that every where inculcates forbearance, charity, and good will in all men.
(Still recovering from a mild concussion…slowly emerging from brain fog….)
Twenty years ago, sociologist Mark Chaves demonstrated that one of the things that congregations are really good at is exposing people to the arts, especially music (Congregations in America, Harvard Univ. Press, 2004). In the course of studying everything that congregations are really good at, Chaves came to a rather surprising conclusion:
“If we ask what congregations mainly do, the answer is, in the first place, gather people for worship and religious education. But another answer is that, in their pursuit of worship and religious education, congregations generate as a by-product more artistic activity than either social services or political activity. Although many may wish it were otherwise, congregations facilitate art… more commonly and more intensively than they pursue either charity or justice.” [p. 201; emphasis mine]
I believe this remains true today. In fact, in my limited experience I’d say participating in music-making (as opposed to consuming music, or as opposed to other art forms) is what really hooks people in the UU congregations I’ve been part of. If you want to grow your congregation, and you have the choice between asking staff to spend more time on public acts of social justice, or asking staff to spend more time on nurturing the choir — go with nurturing the choir, every time.
Recently, though, I had a conversation with a UU who pointed out that many people feel intimidated by choir participation. This comment came from someone who is a fairly skilled amateur musician; they were not talking about themselves, they were making what I feel is an astute observation. And it tallies with my own observations. I remember leading some songs with a group of UU children a dozen years ago, and realizing that several of the children had never sung in a group before — we are a society that either consumes music, or performs music, but rarely makes music together.
“The amateur ukulele club scene is a kind of musical revival of participative music making, reminiscent of the sixties folk music and eighties rock band, with the ukulele as a self-accompanying instrument for singers and non-singers alike. The explosive growth of ukulele clubs and sales raises the question: how does the combination of a simple song sheet with no music symbol or notation and a small, lightweight four-stringed acoustic instrument provide sufficient material for group music making by performers who are not trained to read music or at all in music?….”
Ku documents how ‘ukulele clubs are evolving new ways of making music together, while drawing from a widely-known repertoire of popular music, and using online learning tools such as Youtube videos and lyrics websites.
So then of course I started searching for UU ukulele groups. I found them in: Ithaca, N.Y.; Eugene, Ore.; Salt Lake City; Dubuque, Iowa; Boca Raton, Fla.; Newark, Del.; and Raleigh, N.C.. No doubt there are others out there, but I was too lazy to continue my web search.
I’m not saying that your UU congregation should start a ‘ukulele group. But if we want to reverse the decline of Unitarian Universalism, I suspect we should all start thinking more about expanding the kinds of participative music making we nurture.
I took a sick day today (for a truly boring reason not worth going into). My main need was plenty of rest, so I did as little as possible. Since I’ve been getting increasingly serious about playing ‘ukulele, I decided to listen to a bunch of ukulele virtuosi. What follows are my notes to myself about what I’ve been listening to.
Jake Shimabukuro is perhaps the preeminent ‘ukulele virtuoso today. I’m in awe of his technical proficiency. However, his music doesn’t do much for me. I have to say the same thing about James Hill, who occupies the number two spot amongst ‘ukulele virtuosi — amazing skills, but I’m not much moved by his music. Taimane, who I think now edges Hill out for the number two spot, also dazzles me with her technical brilliance but once again her music just doesn’t do it for me.
Now on to some lesser-known ‘ukulele players who do move me with their music.
I first discovered Corey Fujimoto from his 2015 video of the Presto movement of Bach’s Sonata No. 1 in G minor (BWV 1001). His technical skills have only increased since then. He doesn’t appear to be recording much these days, butt he’s a regular on the Hawaii Music Supply ‘ukulele podcast, where he usually plays with Kalei Gamaio, another ukulele virtuoso. Here’s one of their recent recordings. In my opinion, Fujimoto is not only technically brilliant, but his musical sensibility is worth spending time with. His deep knowledge of classical, pop, rock, jazz, and traditional Hawai’ian musics comes together in something uniquely beautiful. He has a deeply humane musical sensibility.
Kalei Gamaio’s solo work is also well worth listening to. I think I first ran into his playing from this video of him jamming on Pachelbel’s Canon in D with Brittni Paiva and Sungha Jung (they really get going about a minute and a half in). Gamaio is probably best known for his own composition “The Unknown,” which has been covered by hundreds of aspiring ‘ukulele players. But I like him best when he plays jazz, as in this recording of “Autumn Leaves” with Neal Chin — or this recording of “Spain” with Chin and Andrew Molina. What I especially like about Gamaio is how well he listens to other players, and complements what they’re doing without overwhelming; he never shows off, but always uses his technical abilities in service of the music. For me, this kind of humility and sensitivity raises him above many other players.
Turning back to jazz and pop, Brittni Paiva is, in my opinion, underrated as a ‘ukulele player. Women are often ignored in the ukulele world, and of the women uke players Taimane Gardner seems to get the most attention. Paiva isn’t as flashy a player as Gardner, but her technique is so good she doesn’t need to be flashy. You see, Paiva doesn’t need to play a lot of notes because every note she plays is perfect, every note has a purpose, as in this recording. She’s also a multi-instrumentalist, and has issued albums where she played every instrument, and produced the album as well. Listen to her version of Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five.”
Fujimoto, Gamaio, and Paiva all come from Hawai’i, the home of the ‘ukulele. The other major hotspot for ‘ukulele players is Japan. I’m just beginning to learn about Japanese players — if you don’t speak Japanese (like me), it’s hard to find out about them. Fortunately, I just discovered the ‘Ukulele Japan website, an English-language site with links to a dozen of the top Japanese players. I’m still exploring this site, and learning about players like Kiyoshi Kobayashi, Iwao, and Tomoko Suzuki. Check out Suzuki’s version of Benny Goodman’s “Sing Sing,” which includes an amazing percussion break — sheer unadulterated fun
George Formby singing “When I’m Cleaning Windows”
Speaking of unadulterated fun, that brings me to the ‘ukulele player who inspired George Harrison, and indeed all the Beatles. That would be none other than George Formby. It’s easy to dismiss Formby’s humorous songs as dated, but there’s more than than you’d think. Maybe he’s not an impressive ‘ukulele soloist like Paiva, but his syncopated right-hand technique is world-class — as in this film performance of “When I’m Cleaning Windows.” And while his songs are goofy, there’s a kind of innocence and simplicity to them. He’s an Everyman ukulele virtuoso.
Which brings me to one final ‘ukulele virtusoso, George Harrison himself: here he is playing the ukulele not long before he died. Simple stuff, but so well done. It’s just about perfect. (And I do think I hear a little bit of Formby in Harrison’s playing.)
So what do I look for in a ‘ukulele player? Dazzling technique is ultimately empty, unless there’s some deep meaning behind it. The best music has to have — for want of a better word — humaneness.
And that’s what I did on my sick day: I listened for the humanity in the music.
Also, I left out Aunty Genoa Keawe, but that’s mostly because I couldn’t find good free videos of her online (she died in 2008). I love the way she accompanied her singing with her uke.
Our congregation’s Ecojustice Camp, a week-long summer camp, just finished its overnight. We left no trash ourselves, but we scoured our campsite for trash that might have been left by others. The campers carefully arranged the trash on a picnic table. Here’s a photo of all the trash we found:
The Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) just sent an email to congregational leaders saying: “The Ministerial Fellowship Committee voted recently to remove the Rev. Dr. Marian Stewart from fellowship for violating the terms of her probation. These terms were set in 2023 by the Committee based upon a complaint against Rev. Dr. Stewart. Refusal to adhere to those terms violates Rule 21 of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, which requires ministers in fellowship to fully cooperate with the terms of their probation.”
Marian Stewart has already been removed from the online UUA database of professional staff. But her name is not listed on the UUA webpage “UUA Clergy Removed of Resigned from Fellowship with Completed or Pending Misconduct Investigations.” So maybe this is not misconduct? If so, then what’s this all about? Your guess is as good as mine as to why she was removed from fellowship.
Another website says that Stewart is retired from active ministry. So the violation of MFC probation could be anything from she just didn’t bother filling in MFC paperwork (because: retired), to — who knows what.
I understand the desire for transparency has to be balanced with the need for privacy and confidentiality. But somehow this email makes me feel that the balances have tipped well away from transparency in this case.
I also understand how hard it can be to come up with a process that covers all eventualities, so I’m willing to cut the MFC a fair amount of slack. But still, this email feels like it’s aimed at insiders, people who are already in the know — and those like me who are not insiders are left outside wondering what’s going on.
Part of my angst here is that I’ve spent a good part of my career in Unitarian Universalism cleaning up after clergy misconduct (and misconduct by other paid professionals). Clergy misconduct, in my view, thrives in secrecy and ambiguity. Thus when I see ambiguous statements like this one coming from the UUA, it bothers me.
Oh well. Listen to me whining. Heck, lots of things bother me. Just because something bothers me, don’t let it bother you.
Not many blog posts recently, as my spare time has been taken up with revising religious education curriculum.
I just completed a version of my full-year middle school “Ecojustice Class” curriculum for southern New England. Congregations in similar climates in the eastern U.S. should probably be able to use this curriculum as well. This is a beta test version — entirely teachable, but the curriculum is still a little rough around the edges.
Much of this is adapted from the northern California version of the curriculum, which we developed over ten years at the UU Church of Palo Alto. For New Englanders, I adapted this curriculum to a four-season climate. I added several proven session plans which have been adapted from Ecojustice Camp, as well as from my summer eco-spirituality workshops that I’ve led off and on since 2006 (mostly at Ferry Beach Conference Center).
