David v Biandrata

by Rev. Janet Onnie August 10, 2025

            For those of you who like courtroom dramas, this is your day.  I’ve been intrigued by this story since I heard it in seminary, and it has informed much of the way I think about the tension between individuals and their institutions.

The setting is Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century. This was not a period of history known for its tranquility.  In the rest of Europe at this time blood was flowing freely over religious disputes, Catholics killing Protestants, and Protestants killing Catholics as well as other Protestants, and everybody killing Jews. The Ottoman Empire, however, was reaching its apex under Suleiman the Magnificent, stretching from the Persian Gulf in the east to Algeria in the west, and from Yemen in the south to Hungary and parts of Ukraine in the north.  Part of the Ottoman empire was the “Eastern Hungarian Kingdom” then known as Transylvania, ruled by King John Sigismund.

Transylvania was a country divided religiously among Roman Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans.  As a result Christian doctrine was the subject of great debate. Listening to these debates King John Sigismund realized two things:  first, there was no possibility of compromise among the various interpretations of proper doctrine. Second, he remembered that the Ottomans proclaimed and modeled religious tolerance.  As a result of these insights in 1568 King John promulgated the first proclamation of religious freedom anywhere in Europe.  In what is known as the Edict of Torda  the king declared, “Preachers shall be allowed to preach the Gospel everywhere, each according to his own understanding of it. If the community wish to accept such preaching, well and good; if not, they shall not be compelled, but shall be allowed to keep the preachers they prefer. No one shall be made to suffer on account of his religion, since faith is the gift of God.”  

The Edict of Torda did not include unlimited religious freedom to all groups. It extended official tolerance to Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Unlimited religious freedom was extended only to Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and . . . Unitarians.

Wait!  Did I say Unitarians?? How did Unitarians find themselves among the Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists?

Enter Georgio Biandrata and Ferenc David.  Both were among King John Sigismund’s advisors.  Georgio Biandrata was the court physician and skilled politician who had been with the royal family through a generation.  Ferenc David was the court preacher.  Both of them were members of the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, and under the Edict of Torda, they were free to publically explore questions concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.  And they did.  David’s and Biandrata’s exploration and unorthodox interpretations of Christian doctrine caused considerable concern among other members of the Reformed clergy.  Considerable concern. 

In those days, doctrinal matters in Transylvania were fully aired by convening a formal debate. King John Sigismund scheduled such an event for March 3, 1568, and invited those representing the “Unity of God” – the Unitarian position -- to debate the Trinitarians – the Calvinists, Catholics, and Lutherans. The debate lasted ten days, beginning at 5 a.m. each day. Ferenc David represented the Unitarian position and relied on scripture to buttress his arguments. At the conclusion of the debate, David's arguments were seen as stronger, and many in Transylvania embraced Unitarianism. A second debate the following year led the King to declare that he himself was Unitarian, and that there should be religious toleration in the land. By 1571, Unitarianism was given legal recognition in what would turn out to be the King’s last public act. He died two months later as a result of an accident, and left no heir to the throne.

John Sigismund was succeeded by a Catholic named Stephen Bathori.  Bathori was having none of this ‘unity of God’ talk and dismissed most of the Unitarians at court.  However, he retained Biandrata as one of his advisors. While reaffirming a policy of toleration for those Christian religions named in the 1571 decree – the Calvinists, Catholics, Lutherans, and Unitarians -- he declared that he would not allow any further religious changes in doctrine…no more ‘innovation’.  You former Catholics are probably familiar with this stance on innovation.

Despite this prohibition of innovation, Unitarianism gained more converts in Transylvania during that period.  An ecclesiastical organization –headed by Ferenc David, was developed.  Georgio Biandrata, having declared himself a Unitarian, helped in the development.  Although restrictions were placed on Unitarians in 1577, but the organization continued to thrive. David, by now the Unitarian Bishop, was driven toward reform of doctrine rather than development of church organization. He explored questions having to do with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, infant baptism, predestination, and the worship of Jesus, questioning doctrine in all four areas. Biandrata, more concerned with the health of the church than with matters of doctrine, urged David to keep silent. But this was not Francis David's way. In 1578 two circumstances broke the connection between the two:  Biandrata was charged with immoralityand David renounced the necessity of invoking Christ in prayer.  I don’t know which was worse in the 16^th century:  sodomy or praying in the name of Jesus.  I’m not sure I know which is worse in the 21^st century.

Innovator Francis David began to preach his heretical ideas from the pulpit. Institutionalist Biandrata reported David's activities to the Catholic ruler.  Prince Bathori ordered David to stop.  David continued to preach.   In 1579 Francis David was arrested and tried for the crime of “innovation, " questioning and challenging religious doctrine. The prosecutor at trial was none other than Giorgio Biandrata, who dissembled when asked about his own earlier involvement in questioning religious doctrine. Francis David was found guilty of innovation and condemned to prison for the remainder of his life.  He died in the royal dungeon in the castle at Deva on November 15, 1579. Biandrata went on to push the Unitarian church toward more conservative theological positions. By the time Biandrata died in 1588 – strangled by his nephew -- very little remained of his former influence in the Transylvanian Unitarian movement. The Unitarian Church in Transylvania was forced into a position of doctrinal stagnation that lasted for more than two hundred years.

            Doctrinal stagnation.  How does this relate to UU of the 21^st century, when our only doctrine seems to be that we have no doctrine.  If you define ‘doctrine’ as ‘ideas taught as truth’ that’s correct.  But if you define ‘doctrine’ as ‘a rule or principle’, we indeed do have a doctrine.  Or we used to.  The 7 principles of Unitarian Universalism – also known as bylaws – could be – and often is – thought of as a doctrine.  And that was a problem.  Our conversations four and a half centuries after the case between David and Biandrata have no shared doctrine upon which to ‘innovate’ so we turn our questions and challenges on each other’s personal belief systems.  This often makes us an insular and quarrelsome bunch.  The bumper sticker, “Unitarian Universalism -- Where All Your Answers Are Questioned” precludes acceptance of where an individual is at any given time in their personal journey.  It’s the antithesis of listening.  Maybe I’m hyper-sensitive, but this strikes me as an unnecessarily aggressive method of conversation between people searching for truth and meaning.  Now that Article 2 has passed we are talking about values, which seems to be an improvement in our openness to theological diversity.

            As I was thinking about this balance between innovation – the individual’s continuing quest for answers by challenging doctrine – and the institution’s resistance to change

These days I worry about the survival of our religious institutions.  What I worry even more about is my feeling that if Unitarian Universalism can’t get over it’s rejection of Christianity it probably will succumb to those religious groups who DO have a strong identity – even if it’s based on a belief system that many of us find…well, unbelieveable.  Many of my colleagues worry about the same thing.  Even before the pandemic I think we knew that we can’t continue to do business-as-usual.   Many people much smarter than me are gazing into the murky future trying to prepare for it.  I do think denominations, including our own, will soon be a thing of the past.  But these denominations – these institutions -- are the containers that hold ideas – ‘innovations’.  And we Unitarian Universalists profess to be nothing if not innovators.  How will our ideas – our ideals – be held and passed on without the institution?

            History portrays Biandrata as the bad guy in the story.  I’m not so sure.  He did try to get David to temper his remarks so to give the fledging Unitarian church a change to develop strength.  David refused to slow down.  Today we acknowledge Ferenc David as one of our martyrs.  But if Biandrata’s actions NOT silenced David, that I wonder if there would be a group of people in 21^st century Hungary and Romania identifying as Unitarians witnessing to environmental destruction.  Yes, modern Unitarians in Hungary and Romania are a small, persecuted group.  But they exist.  They exist and they fight on.

I wonder the same thing about Christianity.  For 3 centuries it was a movement with countless factions warring over interpretation of events that few had witnessed.  If Jesus had been left to his own devices his life and death may have been just a tiny blip on the screen.  If Paul hadn’t taken up the story and created communities would the teachings of Jesus have just died out?  Had Constantine not stepped in and made it the religion of the state – institutionalized it – would the message of love survive today? 

Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Once more we are in a period of uncertainty, of danger, in which not only our own safety but that of all mankind is threatened. Once more we need the qualities that inspired the development of the democratic way of life. We need imagination and integrity, courage and a high heart. We need to fan the spark of conviction, which may again inspire the world as we did with our new idea of the dignity and worth of free people. But first we must learn to cast out fear. People who `view with alarm' never build anything.”

I preached the story of David v Biandrata back in 2014 when I was affiliated with a congregation grappling with its identity.  There was a lot of fear in that congregation.  Many people ‘viewed with alarm’ the changing nature of the institution.  Some left.  It was the imagination and integrity and courage of those who stayed that struck a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the institution that evolved that community into the healthy, thriving congregation it is today. 

I see the same dynamic being played out on a national scale.  There are a lot of fearful people resisting change.  The ideas taught as truth – the doctrine -- that America was an empty land before the Europeans arrived, that people with dark skin are less than, that natural resources are unlimited, that everyone is welcome – all of this not supported by facts.  Just as Ferenc David vainly search the scriptures for evidence of a trinity, fear-filled people cling to a doctrine that has proven to be false.  There is now the struggle between the Georgio Biandratas, who counsel moving slowly – tip-toeing into change in order to preserve systems embedded in institutions – and the Ferenc Davids – who see the truths of our history and proclaim them. 

Five centuries ago David’s and Biandrata’s exploration and unorthodox interpretations of Christian doctrine caused considerable concern among other members of the Reformed clergy.  I’m happy to say that we Unitarian Universalists carry on that proud tradition today.  Let our communities worldwide continue to question doctrine.  To hold our institutions accountable.  To continue to innovate to meet the challenges of our times.  Let HUU join with others to create institutions full of innovative individuals where the case of David v Biandrata is dismissed.  Dismissed for lack of fear.  May it be so. Amen.