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

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

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

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th