Customer Reviews

William Ellery Channing: An Essay on the Liberal Spirit in America

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

William Ellery Channing: An Essay on the Liberal Spirit in America is not and does not pretend to be a full-scale biography of Channing; the book has only 179 pages of text. Channing was the pre-eminent Congregationalist-turned-Unitarian minister in Boston in the first half of the 19th century, and while he became more radical politically (abolitionist), he never joined those Congregationalists turned Unitarian who became Transcendentalist agnostics like RW Emerson.

At age 18, Channing wrote to a friend that "I am most cheerful when i am most religious," which is how it ought to be, for Christians who believe in the Resurrection. Unfortunately, on p. 97, we learn that Channing thought that it was an 'either/or proposition' between faith/mystery and reason in religion, while there is no reason it cannot be both/and. On p. 102, Channing shows how he connects backwards in history to Jonathan Edwards, and forward to Emerson, in their emphasis on the individual's relationship with God. But isn't Christianity an essentially social faith, both/and with the individual, that 'faith comes through hearing,' and the first evangelizing voice is our mom or dad, who bring us to church to be baptized into the faith community?

On p. 109, Delbanco quotes a writer that the dominant emotion of the liberal clergy was "a terror of living burial." On p. 126, Delbanco shows that the absence of a vivid Devil leads to the absence of a vivid God.

On p. 155, Delbanco quotes Peter Gay that the central objective of the enlightenment was to "disenchant" the world. But what about when we become disenchanted with Peter Gay and friends?

On p. 157, I found one of the few ideological giveaways from Delbanco, when he refers to "what saved [Channing] from dogmatic conservativism, and what kept his voice alive for us. . ." Who said Channing needed to be 'saved' from dogmatic conservatism? Are not theologically liberal Christians just as dogmatic as conservatives, but they just don't like to admit it? Has Channing's voice really been kept alive for many in the 21st century? Wouldn't he be much more well known if he were a standard bearer of evangelical fundamentalists?

Still, the brief book is worth your time.