It was Tuesday evening, February 28, 1854, in downtown Syracuse. The day had warmed a bit, a little snow remained, but it had turned windy and cooler as 7 pm approached. City Hall was filled to capacity with an anticipatory crowd and hundreds more thronging the building unable to get in but straining to hear what they could. This began eleven such evening debates, ending on March 23, regarding what became the famous Lee-May theological debate regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Lee and May were friends, but very different in their views of theology.
Rev. Lee, a local Wesleyan (Methodist) minister, believed and supported the notion of a Trinity, i.e., (a) God, (b) Jesus as a manifestation of God, and (c) the ever present Holy Spirit. This was a basis for his religious views and what he called “three persons in unity of the Godhead” (from page 4 of Discussion of the Trinity, Wesleyan Book Room, Syracuse, NY, 1854, available at SU’s Special Collections unit). Rev. May, our minister, believed in a “God,” and notions of an historical Jesus as a “manifestation of God to men and that God’s Holy Spirit which was so fully manifested in Christ is ever present, the spirit of truth, purity, and mercy” (p. 6).
Subtle, perhaps, but very real differences. Rev. Lee spun out his convictions over the eleven debates fervently believing and defending notions that the bible provided all the evidence needed to support such views. Rev. May, on the other hand, providing support for his views, including many quotations from the bible, that would find much acceptance in our pew today other than views of an everlasting “God” which may differ from many of our own. He disavowed the notion that ministers must believe in the doctrine of Trinity to be legitimate ministers and was convinced that interpretations made by philosophers and religious leaders two and three centuries after the birth of Christ were both incorrect and leading to Trinitarian beliefs still held today.
Debates held in 1854 may have been less contentious than today’s political debates, for example, and we can guess that both Rev. Lee and Rev. May were polite, but passionate, in the defenses they made of their beliefs. At the conclusion of the debates, Sam said, “And here, Brother Lee, after all our disputing, is my right hand of fellowship if you are willing to receive it.” I envision them clasping right hands as Rev. Lee said “I take your hand, and fellowship you as a man and a philanthropist, but I have no fellowship with your theology.” Sam seems to then have had the last word as he concluded with, “Nor I with yours! I suppose that your theology is just as unlike to mine, as mine is to yours” (p. 160).
Those lucky enough to have heard these brilliant men describing their beliefs were no doubt awed, and some may even have changed their personal views one way or the other. Interestingly, the steadfast adherence to a literal translation of the bible today by many continues to lead to misunderstandings and even violent clashes. Now we just need to find a way to have those who disagree with each other clasp hands in friendship and agree to disagree, but in loving ways.
Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee
Written August 5, 2008