What do you think?
Rate this book
For faith and freedom: A short history of Unitarianism in Europe
"Outstanding overview of early Unitarianism before its migration to America. Must reading for UU scholars to build an understanding of the dedication and sacrifice of our ancestors to keep our free faith alive."
211 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 16, 2022
In the 16th century, it was possible to launch a full-scale attack on the Christian orthodoxies of the day. You just had to take into account the likelihood of being denounced, physically attacked, arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and burned alive.
Today the Unitarian Church is very loose on doctrine. In the 16th century Unitarianism, antrinitarianism, or Arianism was a Christian movement centered on the idea that God is strictly one, not a Trinity. As an atheist, I’m outside the argument, but the idea that God has a three-way split personality seems odd to me. When the Bible started becoming available to the general public, people started to notice that it never says that God is a Trinity. The earliest Christians didn’t hold such a belief. By the time Gutenberg published his Bible, though, denying the Trinity or saying that Jesus wasn’t literally God was heretical.
The first heretic Howe discusses in detail is Michael Servetus, who was born in Spain. He published a book in 1531 called On the Errors of the Trinity. He regarded the Logos and the Holy Spirit as modes of God’s expression, not as persons. John Calvin provided information to the Inquisition to initiate Servetus’s prosecution.
In 1553 he was arrested, but he managed to escape prison. He was convicted, sentenced, and executed in absentia (being burned in effigy). Later that year he was recaptured and burned in person. It would be an interesting bit of alternate history if he had avoided recapture, and the date is about right…
Ideas like his got a more tolerant reception in other places, especially Poland and Transylvania. The Polish Minor Reformed Church split off from the Calvinists in 1565. It adopted the revolutionary idea that “since in matters of faith no one in the true church of God may lord it over another, nor be forced, each should enjoy freedom of conscience and be allowed to publish writings on the subject, provided nothing was written calculated to anger another or openly contrary to Christ’s command.”
In Transylvania, Francis (or Ferenc) Dávid began speaking against the trinitarian position in 1566, and his activity led to a milestone in religious freedom, the Edict of Torda. King John Sigismund declared that “in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it.” Further on it said that “it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or removal from his post for his teaching.” This applied only to teachings grounded in Christianity, but it was a huge step forward.
These early steps led in time to the Enlightenment, which stressed freedom of thought and the supremacy of reason. It wasn’t a uniform progression; the gains in one year were often wiped out in a later one. In 1658, Poland exiled everyone who wouldn’t accept the trinitarian position. Francis Dávid was sent to prison for life in 1572 and died there in 1579.
This history is fascinating to me as a 16th century buff, and it has a lot to say to us when we face today’s rising opposition to free speech. People may be shouted down, mobbed on Twitter, or fired from their jobs, but in the United States they don’t risk prosecution or execution for their heresies. If people speaking at risk of imprisonment or death had the courage to maintain their positions during the Reformation era, cancel culture and online insults should look mild by comparison.
I recommend For Faith and Freedom both for its historical insights and for the examples of courageous dissent that it offers.
This view was originally published on my blog and has been lightly edited.
Today the Unitarian Church is very loose on doctrine. In the 16th century Unitarianism, antrinitarianism, or Arianism was a Christian movement centered on the idea that God is strictly one, not a Trinity. As an atheist, I’m outside the argument, but the idea that God has a three-way split personality seems odd to me. When the Bible started becoming available to the general public, people started to notice that it never says that God is a Trinity. The earliest Christians didn’t hold such a belief. By the time Gutenberg published his Bible, though, denying the Trinity or saying that Jesus wasn’t literally God was heretical.
The first heretic Howe discusses in detail is Michael Servetus, who was born in Spain. He published a book in 1531 called On the Errors of the Trinity. He regarded the Logos and the Holy Spirit as modes of God’s expression, not as persons. John Calvin provided information to the Inquisition to initiate Servetus’s prosecution.
In 1553 he was arrested, but he managed to escape prison. He was convicted, sentenced, and executed in absentia (being burned in effigy). Later that year he was recaptured and burned in person. It would be an interesting bit of alternate history if he had avoided recapture, and the date is about right…
Ideas like his got a more tolerant reception in other places, especially Poland and Transylvania. The Polish Minor Reformed Church split off from the Calvinists in 1565. It adopted the revolutionary idea that “since in matters of faith no one in the true church of God may lord it over another, nor be forced, each should enjoy freedom of conscience and be allowed to publish writings on the subject, provided nothing was written calculated to anger another or openly contrary to Christ’s command.”
In Transylvania, Francis (or Ferenc) Dávid began speaking against the trinitarian position in 1566, and his activity led to a milestone in religious freedom, the Edict of Torda. King John Sigismund declared that “in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it.” Further on it said that “it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or removal from his post for his teaching.” This applied only to teachings grounded in Christianity, but it was a huge step forward.
These early steps led in time to the Enlightenment, which stressed freedom of thought and the supremacy of reason. It wasn’t a uniform progression; the gains in one year were often wiped out in a later one. In 1658, Poland exiled everyone who wouldn’t accept the trinitarian position. Francis Dávid was sent to prison for life in 1572 and died there in 1579.
This history is fascinating to me as a 16th century buff, and it has a lot to say to us when we face today’s rising opposition to free speech. People may be shouted down, mobbed on Twitter, or fired from their jobs, but in the United States they don’t risk prosecution or execution for their heresies. If people speaking at risk of imprisonment or death had the courage to maintain their positions during the Reformation era, cancel culture and online insults should look mild by comparison.
I recommend For Faith and Freedom both for its historical insights and for the examples of courageous dissent that it offers.
This view was originally published on my blog and has been lightly edited.
November 11, 2007
This is an excellent short history of Unitarianism in Europe - a type of resource previously missing from the literature on Unitarian history. It conveys the main contours of that history in Poland, Transylvania and England, and touches on Unitarianism elsewhere in Europe. The presentation is accessible and well-written.
Intended for readers unacquainted with European Unitarian history, For Faith and Freedom risks misleading in places (perhaps inevitable in a short treatment of the subject). The first instance comes near the beginning of the book, where Howe attempts a summary of the ancient controversies over aspects of what was to become the doctrine of the Trinity. As the name "Unitarian" reflects opposition to that doctrine, one might think this would be important to Unitarian history, but it is in fact a distraction. Howe devotes to it probably the maximum space it deserves (about five pages). He errs, however, in writing about "the Gnostics." The consensus now is that there was no coherent group by that name; rather, Christian bishops writing against heresy devised the category as a catch-all for a variety of unrelated heresies that appeared to them to be related.
A more significant instance is Howe's treatment of the role of the Enlightenment in the rise of liberal religion. At one place (p. 157) he inaccurately states that American and European Unitarianism share "common origins in the Enlightenment." Better is his preceding remark (p. 152) that the Enlightenment "provided a substrate for the emergence of liberal religious thought." What is commonly meant by "substrate" is "something underlying." But it is not necessarily something underlying in the sense of a foundation or origin. In biochemistry, a "substrate" is the substance acted upon by an enzyme or ferment – a fine image for the role of the Enlightenment in the rise of liberal religion. Well over a century before the Enlightenment, religious liberals in Poland and Transylvania were engaged in dialogue and practical religious reforms aimed at creating tolerance for a variety of religious ideas so as to make safe and sacred space for religious questioning and free discourse. Reason as well as religious feeling and practice were features of the liberal religious ethos fostered in their faith communities. In England (where religious expression was proscribed by law) and America (whose predominant religious culture was inherited from England), the use of reason in religion was submerged. Enlightenment thought provided an outlet, and for some an inspiration, for describing the world (including human religious consciousness) in the language of reason.
A third instance is a passing comment that contrasts being "pietistic" with regarding one's faith as "a way of life." I think Howe uses "pietistic" to mean the kind of faith that is characterized by intensity or exaggerated religious devotion. That makes sense in context. But it can also mean detachment from religious formality or orthodoxy, with a resulting openness to new religious ideas and practices. And indeed, pietism has influenced Unitarianism in Europe and America. Faith as "a way of life" commonly involves a practice of action, reflection, and decision that refines one's commitments about future action. Pietism is committed and active engagement in the reflection and decision-making parts of this practice. In that sense, all Unitarians are (or are expected to be) pietistic.
Still missing from the literature of Unitarianism is any theory about why the doctrine of the Trinity became a flash point between religious liberals and the religious establishment. What was at stake for the Roman Catholic Church in defending it? What was at stake for Luther and his followers? for Calvin and his? Why did Unitarianism arise nowhere except in the presence of Calvinist religion, and often in explicit reaction to it? What did the doctrine of the Trinity symbolize in Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist religious life? How did it function in relation to individuals' spiritual development? A persuasive treatment of these questions would offer insight into Unitarian traditions and guidance for embodying and passing on the Unitarian heritage.
Intended for readers unacquainted with European Unitarian history, For Faith and Freedom risks misleading in places (perhaps inevitable in a short treatment of the subject). The first instance comes near the beginning of the book, where Howe attempts a summary of the ancient controversies over aspects of what was to become the doctrine of the Trinity. As the name "Unitarian" reflects opposition to that doctrine, one might think this would be important to Unitarian history, but it is in fact a distraction. Howe devotes to it probably the maximum space it deserves (about five pages). He errs, however, in writing about "the Gnostics." The consensus now is that there was no coherent group by that name; rather, Christian bishops writing against heresy devised the category as a catch-all for a variety of unrelated heresies that appeared to them to be related.
A more significant instance is Howe's treatment of the role of the Enlightenment in the rise of liberal religion. At one place (p. 157) he inaccurately states that American and European Unitarianism share "common origins in the Enlightenment." Better is his preceding remark (p. 152) that the Enlightenment "provided a substrate for the emergence of liberal religious thought." What is commonly meant by "substrate" is "something underlying." But it is not necessarily something underlying in the sense of a foundation or origin. In biochemistry, a "substrate" is the substance acted upon by an enzyme or ferment – a fine image for the role of the Enlightenment in the rise of liberal religion. Well over a century before the Enlightenment, religious liberals in Poland and Transylvania were engaged in dialogue and practical religious reforms aimed at creating tolerance for a variety of religious ideas so as to make safe and sacred space for religious questioning and free discourse. Reason as well as religious feeling and practice were features of the liberal religious ethos fostered in their faith communities. In England (where religious expression was proscribed by law) and America (whose predominant religious culture was inherited from England), the use of reason in religion was submerged. Enlightenment thought provided an outlet, and for some an inspiration, for describing the world (including human religious consciousness) in the language of reason.
A third instance is a passing comment that contrasts being "pietistic" with regarding one's faith as "a way of life." I think Howe uses "pietistic" to mean the kind of faith that is characterized by intensity or exaggerated religious devotion. That makes sense in context. But it can also mean detachment from religious formality or orthodoxy, with a resulting openness to new religious ideas and practices. And indeed, pietism has influenced Unitarianism in Europe and America. Faith as "a way of life" commonly involves a practice of action, reflection, and decision that refines one's commitments about future action. Pietism is committed and active engagement in the reflection and decision-making parts of this practice. In that sense, all Unitarians are (or are expected to be) pietistic.
Still missing from the literature of Unitarianism is any theory about why the doctrine of the Trinity became a flash point between religious liberals and the religious establishment. What was at stake for the Roman Catholic Church in defending it? What was at stake for Luther and his followers? for Calvin and his? Why did Unitarianism arise nowhere except in the presence of Calvinist religion, and often in explicit reaction to it? What did the doctrine of the Trinity symbolize in Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist religious life? How did it function in relation to individuals' spiritual development? A persuasive treatment of these questions would offer insight into Unitarian traditions and guidance for embodying and passing on the Unitarian heritage.
April 16, 2012
As advertised, this book is indeed "a short history of Unitarianism in Europe." It is fairly readable for this kind of history (like most books of its ilk, it's rather packed with names and dates, but the experienced--or lazy--reader learns to skim over the excruciating details).
If you're interested in this subject matter for some reason, this is *the* book to read on the topic. (And if you are REQUIRED to read this book because you're preparing for UU minister, this is one of the more accessible history books, in my opinion.)
If you're interested in this subject matter for some reason, this is *the* book to read on the topic. (And if you are REQUIRED to read this book because you're preparing for UU minister, this is one of the more accessible history books, in my opinion.)
August 30, 2010
If ya want a summary of European Unitarian history in a digestable 150 pages, this is your book. However, it is largely great-man-history and glorifies us rather than holding rich complexities. (Yes, I do know that's too much to ask in under 200 pages!)
October 12, 2011
Readable history of Unitarianism (only 204 pages); mostly European history. It is hard to comprehend the number of people that were burned at the stake over issues of the trinity (or the number that were unwilling to recant their heresy to avoid being burned at the stake!).
October 29, 2014
Very clear and accessible, if you are interested in the topic.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews