To follow up on my questions for non-Christian UUs, I’m wondering which version of the Christian story you are rejecting. This sort of gets to the post at Philocrites a bit ago that called out how the version of Christianity we say we reject is a good 300 years old.
So what about the version of the story that Jesus is the divine exemplar of God’s love? Or the version of the story where Jesus is God’s way of identifying with human suffering and oppression? Or what about unitarian Christianity? Or universalist Christianity?
Do you reject these stories? Have you considered them? If so, why do you reject them?
Hmm. I haven’t responded before but I thought I would respond to this one. I have discussed on my blog my desire to identify as Christian. I miss it. Yet, whenever I give it a try, it just doesn’t work. I remember a post you wrote back in 2005 where you noted that “if calling Jesus things like “Christ,†“Messiah,†“Son of God,†and “Savior†doesn’t resonate for you, you are at best a heretical Christian” and I guess this is the part that doesn’t resonate with me – I WANT to buy into the “version of the story where Jesus is God’s way of identifying with human suffering and oppression” but to me, it gets really hard to buy into this version (and not the whole savior of the world, died for our sins thing) and still have something in common with those who say that if Christ, Messiah, etc. doesn’t resonate with me, then I am not really a Christian. It seems like some people can pick the Christian story that works for them and go with that, regardless of what others think. Yet, I have this strong feeling that even if I pick a version that works for me, I am still not on board with the MAIN story that involves Savior Christ, etc. It seems hard to get around that……
Thanks for an interesting post…….
Elizabeth
Which am I rejecting?
So what about the version of the story that Jesus is the divine exemplar of God’s love?
> Yep. Don’t believe in God.
Or the version of the story where Jesus is God’s way of identifying with human suffering and oppression?
> See answer above.
Or what about unitarian Christianity?
> Um, god?
Or universalist Christianity?
> Um, afterlife?
The version I can appreciate is the one in which Jesus is arguing for justice, radical hospitality, and is against empire. Course, because he himself ties these things so closely to god, the kingdom of heaven (which can be either afterlife or the realization of god on earth), I have to bracket it and put in all kinds of c caveats.
Rather than doing that, I appreciate the stories of Ursula Goodenough, Daniel Dennett and philosophers, poets, novelists, etc. who emphasize human action, our smallness in the universe and our immense responsibility nonetheless.
That’s me, at least. But I can respect folks who dig Jesus and are content to bracket the god-talk. I just have a hard time doing it.
So what about the version of the story that Jesus is the divine exemplar of God’s love?
If God existed, lots of people in addition to Jesus could be exemplars of God’s love. I don’t worship or pray to any of them.
Or the version of the story where Jesus is God’s way of identifying with human suffering and oppression?
That’s interesting in the vein of a parable or creation myth. I wonder where is the evidence that God identifies more with human suffering now than before Jesus?
Or what about unitarian Christianity? Or universalist Christianity?
I don’t believe there is a God that saves or condemns people.
Do you reject these stories?
Yes.
Have you considered them?
Yes.
If so, why do you reject them?
Don’t believe a God exists.
So it’s just the God part?
Going with the religious naturalism angle, what if Jesus is an expression of emergent properties? In some type of unique way?
For me it’s mostly the God part, but what perplexes me is the assumption that Jesus should be central to my world view. He’s an important figure in Western culture and society, but that’s not reason enough for me to make him the starting point in my personal philosophy.
Replace Jesus with any other major religious figure and you just don’t see this kind of emphatic insistence that they be “considered” lest your spiritual development be incomplete.
I’m not a non-christian UU, but I thought I’d answer anyways.
I am rejecting the notion of Christianity as a religion. To me, Christianity requires accepting a doctrine, whether it be a fundamentalist one or a liberal one. Doctrine, as a general rule, is what I am rejecting, I guess.
I don’t buy that there are versions of the story. Different translations and different interpretations, yes. But not different versions. Well, I guess there are the rogue gospels and such, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.
Christianity is a religion, or concept, if you don’t like the word religion, that is based on the four Gospels, within the context of the rest of the Bible. If you start adding or taking away things, at a certain point, it’s no longer Christianity. It might have something to do with Christ and God and humans, but it’s no longer Christianity.
First, I should say that I LOVE these kinds of questions and also that I was raised a Unitarian… before the merger. For a long time I couldn’t even understand the IDEA of the Universalists.
So what about the version of the story that Jesus is the divine exemplar of God’s love? Well, if you believe in that idea aren’t we are God’s love? Unfortunately for me I can’t think that Jesus was anything other then a great man.
Or the version of the story where Jesus is God’s way of identifying with human suffering and oppression? Well, doesn’t God have a hand in human suffering? Why would he need to put a child in that mess. I think that is a crazy story made up by people trying to justify their suffering.
Or what about unitarian Christianity? If it works for you that is great. You can be UU Jewish, UU Buddhist, UU anything… if it works for you that is great for you.
Or universalist Christianity? Well, they believe everyone can go to heaven… nice thought. If you believe in heaven and again if that idea works for you I support that, but it isn’t my path.
Oh… the cynical humanist UU… perhaps a rare breed nowadays.
That’s the part I guess I can’t deal with… That Jesus was something unique. Like somehow the best exemplar of God’s love, or best embodiment of Justice or somehow anything “In some type of unique way?” Sure he was probably great, or at least stories about him make him seem great, but what I don’t get is why he is unique or SUPER-Great or greater than all the other religious leaders throughout history. Its that whole FOCUS on Jesus as THE greatest guy ever that I can’t do. No problem at all with others who do, but I just can’t pull it off.
After reading some of the responses to the question, I think an obvious follow up question would be, “Which God are you rejecting?” As someone (maybe Marcus Borg, but I’m not sure) once said, “Tell me which God you don’t believe in, and I probably don’t believe in that God either.” I also think that many of the responses seem to be focused on the idea that being a Christian has to mean believing certain things, that there is some sort of clearly defined creedal or doctrinal boundary conditions that, as soon as you cross, you stop being a Christian. I don’t know where this idea comes from–well, actually I do, probably from fundamentalists, who like to preach this sort of dogmatic conception of what the Christian faith is about. I know, because I grew up in that background myself. But, in reality, Christianity is significantly more diverse than its orthodoxy defenders will admit. It’s okay if someone doesn’t see Jesus as having any importance in their religious faith, and it’s okay if someone doesn’t believe in God, but in either case, I do think it is important to be careful to identify the mindset that religious conservatives hold about what “God” or “Christianity” supposedly mean, and to recognize that this is simply wrong.. Especially in an ostensibly liberal, free thinking religion of seekers like UUism, it seems especially incumbent not to close one’s mind and to recognize diversity of religious thinking and not succumb to a dogmatic mindset about what religions supposedly adhere to.
Hmm… Chewing on uniqueness some.
I’m thinking of uniqueness in the way that Buddha is unique in all of human history. Or Confucius or Gandhi. There was something unparalleled about his life that teaches us things that no other life could have taught us.
To put it a little differently, if Jesus (etc.) had not lived, then there are things that we as a species would not know.
“To put it a little differently, if Jesus (etc.) had not lived, then there are things that we as a species would not know.”
Can you give some examples?
Interesting discussion. I don’t identify myself as a Christian because Jesus did not identify anyone as Christian and I don’t think it was his goal to start a religion. Christian was a term that separated some followers and admirers of the teachings of Jesus from others who agreed with certain Jewish doctrines at the time. It also and provided a way for people who weren’t Jewish to be indoctrinated into some of the teachings of Judaism along with doctrine that came from interpretation by others about who Jesus was and what God was like.
I have my own interpretation of who Jesus was which I think is as good as any of the ones given by others. The first chapter of John talks about the “Word” being God and all things being made through the “Word”. From a Taoist perspective, I look at this “Word” as the Tao, the Way, the order and balance in the world. The mystery beyond all mysteries.
“The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
” Tao Te Ching vs. 1
I see Jesus as someone who deveolped great wisdom about the “Word” or the Tao, just as other representations of the “Word” have spoken to our hearts by example and teachings. Lao Tzu, Buddha, Gandhi, are some who come to mind. Prophets are those who speak to our spirit, the part of us that is eternal, beyond our individual manifestation. We may all be prophets to each other at time or other, but some seem to have grasped a bit more understanding than the rest of us. They have been able to help us look deeper into the mystery and find connection with it. I don’t believe Jesus ever really claimed to be the ONLY son of God because he often talks about God as our father and in the sermon on the mount he talks about peacemakers being called the children of God.
So to me, Jesus is a source of wisdom about the Tao, the great mystery, the word and an example of how to live in harmony with it. He isn’t the only example, and I don’t believe a lot of the stories about him or in the religion and doctrine that others have created in response to their understanding of his life and teachings, but I do look at what was written about him for the Word that speaks to the divine spark within me. I hear it in many of the parables and in the way he chose to live his life. So in that way, I am a follower of Jesus.
Sure, but first let me frame it a little better. I’m not saying that no one else could have taught us, or that no one else tried. I’m saying that we—a particular we—wouldn’t know it without him.
So, to go with Buddha, without Gautama, we wouldn’t know that life is a cycle of dis-ease leading to dis-ease. Or, to go with Jesus, that our ethics should be framed by the knowledge that we are all brothers and sisters (Abba, father). Their lives taught us these things in a way that no one else did, and maybe in way that no one else could have.
Didn’t Jesus’ rabbi teach the same thing (we are all brothers and sisters?). Almost all of the Eastern philosophies are predicated on the idea that we are all one?
I don’t buy that if Jesus hadn’t lived, there are things we wouldn’t know, as that may well be the case right now, and I don’t feel deprived (except by the counterfactual possibility that if Christianity and Islam hadn’t taken over the world, we’d be farther along than we are now. but that’s mere speculation)
Anyway, I reject all of them, because I don’t find it useful to stuff Jesus and Christian terminology in where none is needed.
Chutney says,”I’m not saying that no one else could have taught us, or that no one else tried. I’m saying that we—a particular we—wouldn’t know it without him.”
For many of us who grew up in Christian churches reading the Bible, that is probably true. His life story and teaching guided and directed my first experiences with spirituality and provided moral instruction and lessons in empathy, forgiveness, love. Had I grown up in another culture, I think that I would have come to the same place by following other teachers. My understanding of and connection to the spiritual has been enriched by learning from other sources and questioning the parts of the Bible that conflict with other views. Unfortunately, Christian doctrine about the one and only one path also restricted my access to other teachers and even made me doubt my own spiritual truths.
Does it matter if Jesus was unique or not? I am personally a religious pluralist. I think there are many paths to the sacred. Sometimes religious loyalty isn’t particularly rational. It just is. Sometimes we are comfortable with a particular religious path because it just speaks to something inside us, so that’s the road we choose. So maybe Jesus isn’t “unique”, but some of us might just be drawn to the Christian traditions that emerged around his life and teachings anyway–maybe that’s the religion we were brought up in, maybe it just works for us–whatever. So one can be loyal to a tradition built around Jesus without believing that there aren’t other religious leaders besides Jesus who can’t also serve a comparable purpose.
Hafidha, no, the closest Jesus came to having a rabbi was John the Baptist, and no one’s really sure what their relationship was really about. But there were one or two other rabbis at the time saying pretty much the same thing.
I think what I’m trying to put a finger on is what the person’s life taught us, not the abstract principles itself. There are people whose lives move us and change us in ways far beyond their words.
Mystical Seeker, the question I’m coming back with is: Does it matter if Martin Luther King, Jr. was unique or not? I’d say that none of us here would be who we are if MLK had not been who he is. I’m trying to point beyond regular, ordinary uniqueness, to people who are uniquely unique.
It sounds like what you might be saying, Chutney, that you benefited from the stories of Jesus Christ, even though he was not the only person to talk about the Golden Rule or to rally against his oppressors, or encourage charity, etc. But does that make him special? To you, yes, but more special than everyone else? Not necessarily.
And even being special doesn’t translate into a value in and of itself. Would any of us be the same if Genghis Khan had never been born? Or Louis Pasteur? Or if Marie Antoinette hadn’t been beheaded? We are talking about pivotal events that affected the world, but not all stories affect us as individuals the same way, and I wouldn’t say that Marie Antoinette or any of these other historical figures are more special because of their role in history. They are remembered, they are honored (or demonized), they are at the center of controversy, they had a great deal of power, etc. but there have been many thousands of great people (especially women) whose names we’ll never know, and whose influence we’ll never comprehend.
I lean more towards the words “and the greatest man is nobody.” (from the Way of Chuang Tzu)
I think it is pretty obvious that Jesus made a difference in history. He was apparently so charismatic important to those around him that when he died, his followers simply could not accept his death as the final word.
I would say that his teachings aren’t just about the Golden Rule. I think some people just try to redue his message to that of a social teacher who taught people to be nice. I disagree with that characterization. I think he was a lot more than that. Lots of people have taught some form of the Golden Rule besides Jesus. Nothing unique there, really. But I also think that what he did teach, and live, was a message of radical inclusion, as well as rejection of institutionalized religious authority that colluded with political authority. It was a joyous celebration of God’s in-breaking presence on earth–which was why he partied so much, including with prostitutes and tax collectors. I would argue that he sought a world in which God’s will for mercy and social justice, rather than the will of Caesar and his religious collaborators, defined the way the world was run–which is to say, the Kingdom of God.
This is a message that resonates a lot with me.
What MS said.
A little late with this comment, but I’m still catching up on my blog reading after summer vacation. Chutney writes: “To follow up on my questions for non-Christian UUs, I’m wondering which version of the Christian story you are rejecting.”
Oo, oo [raising hand], call on meeee!
Background: Born a Unitarian (literally — before merger). Raised a Unitarian Universalist. Have been in the process of converting to Universalism for several decades now.
In the course of which conversion, I’ve been rejecting the easy priveleged religion of my Unitarian forebears, where we humans were going experience “salvation by character” and then make “progress onwards and upwards forever.” As a post-Christian, I’ve been rejecting the idea that we are so fully in control of our own destinies, and rejecting the meta-narrative that says we’ll eventually get everything right (which is, after all, just a slight reworking of the old story of salvation that says that heaven will come later in history, in some inconceivable future time). As a post-Christian Universalist, I’ve been rejecting the system that so valued gradual progress (gradual, so it wouldn’t upset the applecart of Unitarian privelege?), and carefully considering the claims of ultra-Universalists like Hosea Ballou who taught that any punishment for sin must come in this lifetime.
No final answers (as always). Stay tuned for further developments.