Skip to main content

Me and Jesus: Episode 6

Sometimes Jesus can feel like an abusive spouse. He says the most lovely things sometimes, and other times he says the most horrible things. And I struggle with what is central and what is peripheral, what is permanent, and what is transient, whether there is enough there to keep me in the relationship and whether I can find a way to ignore (or deal in some way) with the rest.

If I took my analogy seriously then I should be saying to myself: Get out! Get out of that abusive relationship and don't look back! And so many of us, so many of us Unitarians have done exactly that: liberated ourselves from an abusive religious relationship. And it hurts so much to look back because it was difficult, and now we're free. And we only want to talk about it to say how glad we are to be rid of it, and to make insulting comments to Jesus to keep him at arms length.

But as much as Jesus (and/or the tradition) hurts me, it also hurts me when someone makes those snide comments. 'Hey, that's my man!' I wanna say. It hurts when someone insults someone you love. Though I'm not sure it's Jesus I'm in love with, but maybe the Christic spirit that Jesus imperfectly incarnated.

If I am to be a Christian, it will always be an ambivalent Christian, because it's often a hard and hurtful journey.

Comments

Yewtree said…
Don't forget that the Gospels are the words that were attributed to him by later writers.

Yeshua himself was/is not exclusivist, or judgmental. He did the righteous anger thing a few times, but that's not the same as being judgmental. I'm willing to bet that if Yeshua did the Myers-Briggs test, he'd come out as an ENFP (extrovert intuitive feeling perceptive). Hmm, though, I'm an ENFP...

Check out the Scholars' Gospel, and also "Good as New: a radical retelling of the scriptures" by John Henson. Read the Gospel of John ch 14 very carefully, and note how the latter part of that chapter is not exclusivist. Commune with the Buddha/Christ energy of compassion and love. If that doesn't work, find a new hero who better represents the image of the Anointed One for you. And good luck and best wishes in your quest!
Yvonne, I'm aware that many words attributed to Jesus may not have been said by him. But at the same time I'm relunctant to simply say everything I like must have been said by him and everything I don't must have been added by some other nasty person. I think many of us progessive searchers go through thinking that, but I think it's simplictic, and may be missing an important issue.

I don't think you can easily separate the historic man and the traditions that came after him. When I say 'Jesus' I can't only mean who he actually was, but have to also understand 'Jesus' as a symbol for the greater tradition too.

That tradition is imperfect, as the man himself must have been imperfect.

The issue is how to develop a healthy relationship with that tradition when you believe much of it needs reforming or rejecting. How do you let what is good feed you, while rejecting what is bad and unhealthy?

Popular posts from this blog

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th...

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...