GO ON, GO ON…
Galatians 2:1-5,11-16

A sermon given by the Rev. Richard H. Taylor
September 26, 2004 / Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost

In the letter to the Galatians we get Paul’s view on what was probably the biggest dispute in the early church. Yes, even in the early days Christian churches struggled and debated over wrenching important issues.

Paul had been traveling around the Mediterranean and had met many gentiles, many non-Jews, who were interested in his message about Jesus, the resurrection, and a gracious God. Paul wanted to widen the Christian community to include these gentiles. However, back in Jerusalem, the early Christians had all been Jews, and continued to follow Jewish laws and customs, such as circumcision, and dietary restrictions. Many of them believed that you could not become a Christian unless you became a Jew first. The insisted on the law, and viewed religion as legal submission. Hence the controversy.

So in this controversy you had a faction led by Paul, who wanted to become more inclusive, and less legalistic. On the other side you have the people in Jerusalem who are all law and legality. In between were people like Peter, who were wishy-washy and vacillated from one side to the other. That’s why Paul gets so angry with Peter – Cephas – in this text. Peter would tell Paul he agreed with him, and then go tell the other side he agreed with them.

What happened, in many cases, was that the inclusive party actually was cut off by part of the legalistic party. Inclusion of more varied people and a rethinking of old taboos, caused a split in the Christian community, and some Christians would have nothing to do with others.

Remembering then what happened in the early Church, I would like to spend the center of this sermon telling you about a story from the research project I was doing on my sabbatical this summer. I think this story parallels the Biblical story. I will then conclude by drawing possible scenarios for our time.

At the end of the American Revolution the two largest religions in the new United States were the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians. Both of these groups were English-speaking, Reformed, mostly “Calvinist” churches. They both valued an educated clergy, and their worship services were very similar. Indeed the two groups had been cooperating in colonial America before the Revolution. Congregationalists were centered in New England, were mostly English in descent, allowed for some flexibility in beliefs, and had autonomous congregations. Presbyterians were centered in the Middle Atlantic and Southern states, were mostly of Scottish and Ulster descent, rigidly adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and had a uniform national organization which had some power over local congregations.

After the Revolution, because of their common links, the two denominations decided to cooperate together in the founding of churches in the new American west. This cooperation and what happened to it is the topic of the book I am writing as a result of my sabbatical.

To summarize what was done, Presbyterians changed their rules to allow autonomous Congregational churches to join their presbyteries outside of New England. They were supposed to keep their freedoms. This meant that outside of New England the two groups became one broad inclusive denomination, sort of like Paul bringing in the gentiles.

One can not underestimate how important this was to American religion. These had been the two largest denominations that were cooperating. They were established churches, with more money than the other new churches on the scene, and they had control of many, if not most, of the nation’s leading colleges. They were the elite.

The cooperation seemed to work for some decades. Just as was the case at that time in the nation, an “Era of Good Feeling” encouraged people to subdue their differences and get along. In 1820 the President of the United States ran for reelection with no organized opposition. Can you imagine that!

But the Era of Good Feeling fell apart in the country and then in the united church work. When the country began to split, one faction was led by President John Quincy Adams, a New Englander, who later became a close ally of the Congregational Amistad Committee. His opponent was flamboyant, pistol carrying, military man and slave owner Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian.

Among other issues, Jackson refused to obey the Supreme Court and stole the land of the Cherokee Indians and forced them to go west in the infamous “Trail of Tears.” The missionaries of the Boston-based mission board went with the Indians; and even sued Jackson’s government on the Indian’s behalf. Jackson was furious with the mission board.

And as the nation divided, so did the church work. The life styles of strict Puritans and rowdy Appalachian mountaineers did not mix. Congregationalists wanted their churches to be able to change things, Presbyterians expected churches to take orders. Congregationalists came up with new nuances of Reformed doctrine, Presbyterians insisted on strict traditional adherence and subscription to the Confession of Faith. Congregationalists had abolished slavery in New England, and had a limited tie to it. Many prominent Presbyterians were major slave holders and supporters of it.

Some people still imagined church unity. Famous New England preacher Lyman Beecher went to Cincinnati to head up a new united seminary for the west. Beecher was a compromiser. But he got burned. Some of his students thought he was too conservative, so they went off to the new left-wing school at Oberlin in protest. On the other hand conservative Presbyterians thought Beecher was too liberal, so they brought him up on charges of heresy before the Presbytery. Other prominent New Englanders in the west were also brought up on heresy charges, including Beecher’s son.

President Jackson said he was more worried about the splits in the Presbyterian Church than he was about the splits in the nation.

Finally the conservatives decided they were going to purify the Presbyterian Church. They got a majority at the 1837 General Assembly and voted to throw out of the Church four synods of churches in New York and Ohio, those that had the most churches made up of people of New England ancestry, or claiming Congregational forms in their local churches.

Those people thrown out in 1837 couldn't believe it had been done. It would be like the Catholic Church throwing out five dioceses. The people thrown out couldn't believe that this had happened. They therefore prepared a big rally before the 1838 General Assembly to get accepted back into the Church. All the religious leaders showed up for the big meeting. And all the media in America were there as well. It was big news in the press. No major religious group in America had ever split before this.

The people that had been thrown out looked for an ally who would be on the floor of the Assembly. They chose thirty-eight year old John Payne Cleveland to be their spokesperson. Cleveland was the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Detroit and Moderator of the Michigan Synod. He already had a reputation as a good preacher – speaker. Cleveland was a native of Massachusetts, and a graduate of Bowdoin and Andover Seminary. The Michigan Synod was predominantly New England in origin, but for some reason had not been thrown out. So Cleveland had a seat in the hall. The building was enormous, and delegates sat on the floor and visitors in the gallery. The place was packed, the media were there. Cleveland got up to give his speech to welcome back into the Church those who had been thrown out. But the Moderator acted like he was God. He said to the thrown out people “we do not know you.” He refused to listen and would not allow Cleveland to speak. The crowd in the balconies went wild. People began screaming at each other. The press tells us that Lyman Beecher and the liberal Yale Professor Nathaniel Taylor were both on the floor with Cleveland. How Taylor was there I have not figured out. But as the Moderator tried to stop Cleveland, Beecher and Taylor said “Go on, go on,….” But the Moderator wouldn't let it, and the crowd became more furious. Finally the meeting broke up. Cleveland, Beecher, Taylor, and those who were thrown out went down the street and reorganized as a new group.

The split and news about Cleveland’s speech were on the front pages of most American news papers.

Christian unity was broken by throwing the inclusive tolerant liberals out.

But then follows the very strange history of the group that had been thrown out. Some of them were so angered that they had been thrown out that they spent the next several decades trying to prove that they were acceptable to the conservatives. They played the Peter role. They had been liberal, but now wanted to reconcile with the conservatives.

With so many in the thrown-out faction now trying to warm up to the people that had accepted them, the few really inclusive people became disgusted with the games. So many of them either started Congregationalism in the west, or came back to New England. All of Beecher’s children eventually left. Son Henry Ward Beecher went to Brooklyn, New York to found Plymouth Church where he became a famous anti-slavery leader. Daughter Harriet eventually moved to Hartford, Connecticut with her Seminary-teaching husband Calvin Stowe. She also wrote a book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

John Payne Cleveland also decided to give up on the wishy-washy middle group. He came back to New England where he became pastor of a Church in Providence, Rhode Island: Beneficent Congregational Church.

Here he became another one of our antislavery leaders.

So note the parallel. Some people seek to widen the Church. They are then put down and excluded by the legalists. Then some of those accused try to warm up to those people that accused them. Others continue to believe in inclusiveness, but have to give up on the unity they once sought.

I wonder if the United Church of Christ and Beneficent Church are not in the same boat today? The United Church of Christ was born out of a love for unity. We hoped Christians with various points of view could get together in one united Church. Beneficent joined the new venture. We did not want to be isolated by ourselves. We wanted to be ecumenical.

But we also wanted to allow for theological diversity. We also wanted to support women, and minorities, and gays. But in place after place we are being excluded. Some United Church ministers have been thrown out of local ministerial associations. Providence talk shows say Beneficent should have its tax free status removed. WRNI owners WBUR say we can’t say we are a “voice for justice” on the radio because that is a political statement. Some legislators want to impose Constitutional amendments which refuse to recognize our families. But slavery could not be handled by ecumenism. Neither can sexism nor heterosexism. Our inclusive beliefs may mean that we have to “Go on, go on,…” and say that which some do not want to hear. And it may mean that we will be marginalized.

We may be at a decisive moment as a church. Do we want to run back to the people who exclude, or are we willing to live separately but with values in tact? What do you think?

Amen.