Skip to main content

It would be enough

Even if there was no Nicene Creed, I would still be here.
Even if he wasn't of one essence with the Father, I would still be here.
Even if the Bible is not divinely inspired, I would still be here.
Even if there was no Paul, I would still be here.
Even if he didn't rise bodily from the dead, I would still be here.
Even if he didn't bodily ascend into heaven, I would still be here.
Even if he isn't the Only Way, I would still be here.
Even if he didn't walk on water, I would still be here.
Even if he didn't heal anyone, I would still be here.
Even if his mother wasn't a virgin, I would still be here.
Even if he wasn't the Messiah, I would still be here.
Even if he thought he was the Messiah, and was wrong, I would still be here.
Even if he was wrong about a few things, I would still be here.
Even if there was nothing of him but the sermon on the plain, a piece of writing describing a way of life filled with divine love, a way of life so radical and yet so simple. Even if there was only that glimpse of that kind of life, it would still be a life I would want to try to give myself to. It would still impress me enough for me to try to live my life in such a crazy, impractical, romantic, spiritual love-filled way.
It would be enough.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is a very though provoking and challenging post, because it highlights the tension I'm currently struggling with - that if it wasn't for many of the features of Christianity that I have difficulty with, I probably would never have heard of the radical rabbi Yeshua in the first place.

I worry that by rejecting the way Jesus has been brought to me is either completely liberating and empowering - the essence/message remains intact, or is incredibly selfish and 'faithless' by letting my head rule my heart and somehow 'denying God' on intellectual grounds.

I don't really know how to square this circle.
8:53 pm
Jaume de Marcos Andreu said…
But who is the focus of the Christian religion? Is he the rebel rabbi from Galilee, or the son of God announced by Paul and the gospel writers? And even more intriguing: if we had first-hand experience of the historical Jesus, would we like him? Or do we prefer to create our own Jesus out of the NT stories?
11:30 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...
21 comments
Read more

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...
11 comments
Read more

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...
14 comments
Read more