Sunday, July 19, 2009

I have a very low threshold for Jesus

The title of this post is a quote from one of the people I interviewed after worship at Micah's Porch. I have a very low threshold for Jesus, he said, in response to a question I had asked about why he found this church to be a place he felt at home. He meant that in order for him to feel comfortable in a worship service, he couldn't have it too filled with Jesus.

I was surprised. Even more surprised when he told me he was raised Unitarian, since generally I find that those who have the most resistance to Jesus in UU churches are those who were raised in a Christian faith. But actually, it is fairly common sentiment within our communities. We have a collective low threshold for Jesus. But I had expected a different attitude at Micah's Porch. Their pastor seems Jesus-oriented, though he hasn't told me that himself. In one of our first conversations, though, he told me that he was a traditional Unitarian. He even half-joked that while there are UU groups for polyamory, we don't yet have a clear acceptance of UU Unitarians. After talking with him further, I am pretty sure that he was not saying that there wasn't acceptance of the upper-middle-class-well-educated-reason-driven-white-male-orientation that is a big part of the Unitarian tradition. No, I think he was talking about Jesus. (And God, but I have to come back to God later. As a Unitarian, we can have these conversations separately. :) )

Despite the signficant presence of the UU Christian Fellowship, a good portion of contemporary Unitarian Universalism has a low Jesus threshold. As one of my good friends observed, UUs are much more likely to turn to Mary Oliver or Rumi than to the Sermon on the Mount for guidance and grounding in our worship.

When I went seeking a welcoming community with whom I could worship and heal - just about 10 years ago now - I confess to my own low threshold for Jesus. I do not know for sure if our collective intolerance is about injury, but mine was. I could not see my way to any kind of healing if it was to be wrapped up in Jesus. The word, the person, the ideas, the religion, even if just a shadow of the religion. I was angry at the church for being against me, and my love, for teaching me that God is love, and then backtracking and revising, asserting that God was only some kinds of love. But I took them at the original promise - God is full love, large love, complicated love, indivisible love. And that understanding and faith meant that I could not find God through the symbol of Jesus. Because Jesus had come to mean division, disintegration - distrust of the body, dis-ease of the heart.

I was relieved to find no mention of Jesus in that first UU church I attended. I don't know if I ever heard his name in the time of our attendance, and I was grateful. It offered me a kind of space and time to recover and rediscover my sense of truth and wholeness among religious community.

Jesus is a real issue for Unitarian Universalism today. I cannot even count how many times people have mentioned to me that they would be Unitarians if they could find a UU church that was willing to welcome them in their love for Jesus, and offer them a worship space and community that allowed Jesus to be a central part of their spiritual practice. I hear it from my classmates, I hear it in my community, and I see it in popular dialogue around religion - I mean who hasn't read Marcus Borg and thought - this guy is a Unitarian! But he's not.

Three or four years after I first attended a Unitarian Universalist church, I was reading a copy of the UU World magazine, and I had an epiphany. Seriously, it came to me suddenly, overwhelmingly: I loved Jesus. And if I was to really follow Jesus, to take seriously the message of Jesus, I would be forever a better human being. And if the world were to follow the ways of Jesus, we would be universally transformed. This was not a rational moment, but rather a deep feeling of confidence. And just as quickly as it came, it left, and in its place, I was afraid. Because I did not know exactly how to reconcile this deep understanding and peace with Jesus with my sense of being called to minister to those who - yes - had a very low threshold for Jesus.

I do think a lot of us UUs keep Jesus at arm's length out of a sense of injury. Whether a personal or societal injury, I do think we have been hurt by the use of Jesus in our world today. By the distillation of God into the image of Jesus dying and bleeding on the cross - which I think also distills humanity into sinful creatures who require the suffering of God to attain salvation. I know this isn't the first thing people usually articulate as the source of their injury as it relates to Jesus and Christianity, but for me, it is the theologically central struggle I encounter as I attempt to rebuild my understanding of Jesus and his message.

What are we going to do about Jesus? What are we going to do in Unitarian Universalism to make a safe and full space for those who are Unitarian in the traditional sense? Those who not only have a high threshold for Jesus, but seek Jesus as a central symbol for their path to the divine? Do we wish them well and best of luck, and send them all to the nearest UCC church? And simultaneously, what are we going to do with all of this anger and resistance we have built up in our communities towards Christianity and Jesus specifically, and theism and God generally? Or the sense as articulated here, that Unitarian Universalism is a 200 year movement away from Christianity? Is it possible for two members of the same religion to see Unitarian Universalism as a movement away from Jesus and the faith that most allows them to follow Jesus?

When I was first working through my project for the FTE, I returned repeatedly to a sense of injury within our Unitarian Universalist communities. And as I shared these thoughts with others, they assured me that this is not unique to Unitarian Universalism. The religously wounded walk into all kinds of faith communities, every Sunday, seeking recovery and rebirth. But what they find there, to be truly healing, to be bread for their journey, and not stones, as Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza asserted - cannot shirk away from addressing this injury directly. By acting as if Jesus is a taboo subject (a love that dare not speak its name?), what possible way do we have for healing what is finally a distortion and misrepresentation of all that Jesus spoke of? If the only way we speak of Jesus is with derision or dismissal, what hope do we have of understanding our true historical inheritance, which includes many who were so committed to their sense of the Christian message that they were willing to die for it? And if we call ourselves open to all spiritual paths except the one which calls itself Christian, what way do have to know ourselves as fully interdependent with all of those who, as the central message of their lives, feel saved by their relationship with Jesus Christ?

Although I walked into Unitarian Universalism with a very low threshold for Jesus, I am coming to believe that now is the time for us to re-make our relationship with him and his teachings. Now is the time for us to heal these wounds once and for all, to offer worship and fellowship which is truly welcoming of those who find in his message life, joy, and healing. To offer counseling and support for those who find in this work buried pain and profound injury. To create systems of life which can, over time, meet all those who enter our sanctuaries seeking recovery from their own religious injuries, and offer them a greater path of life. To re-image Jesus for ourselves and for our world as a teacher of love, of a giver of life, of sign of hope. To foster imagination and strengthen relationships within our communities as we allow this work to draw attention to our differences in spiritual beliefs and practices. To encounter Jesus in a way which honors the true pluralism of our world, in a practice and exploration of what it may mean to find Jesus beyond notions of belief or creed, imperialism or colonialism. And to seek this and all of our spiritual healing with the faith that diversity reveals to us the divine, and that by being in a community which celebrates and relishes in its differences, we are ultimately made whole.


The amazing artwork on this post is from janet mckenzie. You can find a great summary of her work on the Tikkun Blog.

9 comments:

  1. I can't speak to the struggles of UU, although I can say that more "progressive" UCC churches have similar "problems" with Jesus. Mostly what I want to say is that I love your language of having "low/high thresholds" for Jesus. I find this much more comfortable than talking about "low/high Christology" -- as I have heard too many folk equate not having a high Christology (like them) with not loving Jesus -- and therefore I'm not really a Christian.

    I love Jesus. Love him. But I don't have a high Christology. I think saying I have a high "threshold" for Jesus is a better way of putting it. Thanks for that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am also not coming from a UU perspective, but from a raised-progressive-Catholic perspective and from a fueled-by-my-Spiritualist-Penitente-and-Jewish-ancestors perspective... I have definitely bristled at the speaking of his name, but that has usually happened in a context where it was clear in multiple ways that I was not welcome. I have managed to keep the message of hatred un-linked to the idea of a man. Maybe because every Christmas we would do las posadas and perform his birth? That created a strong counter-narrative... I guess I have a pretty high threshold, but as Towanda says, not a high Christology. Jesus is more of a friend, colleague, peer, than a special somebody. Personally, I think that's how he'd want it (Gretchen, you'll have to inform me of what kind of heresy that statement is). BUT - one of my favorite things about Jesus IS the image of him on the cross. Interesting that you struggle so with that image. Especially since your writing here and your understanding of life is so informed by the concept of injury. What a profound and glorious embodiment, that image is, of the injury it is to be human. Not because we sin. But because we love.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love this post. And I don't think it's just UUers who need to come to terms with Jesus. I think it's all of us in the liberal church. Jesus has been so co-opted by the Religious Right that many of us struggle to know how to see him apart from the image of the God who died for our sins and saved us from the hell we deserve. I think it was actually during my time at Wheaton that the image of Jesus was transformed for me--not Jesus suffering for me and for my sin, but Jesus/God suffering with me--with a bleeding and broken world--in empathy, the greatest kind. And so even when I lost my faith in Evangelicalism, the Bible, and the historically orthodox doctrines, the central symbol of Christ always remained for me. In many ways I'm actually more moved by the image of Christ the incarnate God than I am Jesus the Human. I think the symbol of a God who would take on a human body, a human sexuality, a human existence and walk this world in order to be with us and to transform the world with us is astounding. The image of intimacy in that myth/symbol is what allows me to have some kind of hope, I think--that God can be in my skin, breathing the same air, heart beating with me, with you, with all. And though I don't much care whether there's any empirical truth in the biblical narrative about Jesus or in the church's claims about Jesus' divinity, the picture of God as Emmanuel is totally central to my faith...I think it says something true on the most profound level about God. It's interesting to me, now looking back on it, that I've never struggled with Jesus as much as I have with lots of other things. It was never a huge issue for me I guess bcs the symbol of Jesus the Christ was always more important to me than the church's truth claims about Jesus and his death for my salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jesus is just alright with me. -The Doobie Brothers

    ReplyDelete
  5. I left Jesus behind when I left home at 17. I always stated love for God but the Jesus talk was just too much for me. Suffice it to say that I get it. And yet, despite the baggage, I was pulled back into Jesus talk through the Lutheran tradition.

    The language of threshold is perfect because it puts the onus on the person who struggles. I have a high threshold for Jesus in the way I have experienced and come to understand him in my life. I have a low threshold for the ways in which others attempt to wield him like a bludgeon as if they are privvy to the heart and mind of Jesus' self. I love the Jesus in your last paragraph as you describe "a teacher of love, of a giver of life, of sign of hope". Indeed, my experience of the love, life and hope of Jesus sets my high threshold.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful comments on Jesus. Just a couple things I wanted to respond to....
    High/Low Threshold language vs. High/Low Christology...I wonder how the 2 things actually relate - as in, if you only know Jesus through a theology of high christology, does that send you down a path wherein later you are more likely to have a lower threshold?

    This somewhat gets to my second response, which is about the theology of the cross thing that Indra commented on. It is not the cross per se that is the issue for me, but two things about the cross...first, that Jesus gets distilled to only being about the cross. That the Christianity has often been about violence, trauma, brutality - injustice, death, and finally human arrogance and evil. That Jesus' life's purpose was so that he would die, rather than how he lived. If instead, the cross and the great tragedy of his death is paired with the message of his life - I find that the best of Christianity. That is, when Christianity both signals to us the possibility of this-worldly salvation by way of embodied compassion, as well as the ways that this kind of radical love is often met with profound anger and fear - that is a wise and rich Christianity, a Christianity that this world needs.
    My second issue with the cross is related, and I kind of hint at it in my original post, but to be more direct - is in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Which attests that Jesus came to earth in order to die for our sins, to die as a "substitute" for us - to be a sacrifice on behalf of all sinful humans past present and future. There are many reasons why this way of thinking about Jesus is injurious from my perspective, including to me, the fact that it says that God couldn't come up with any other way to "save" humanity (that is, to restore the relationship between God and humanity) than to send a single human, his son no less, to death. What kind of God does that say that we have?! To me, the distillation of Jesus and Christianity into this single understanding has been a great obstacle for me in coming to re-understand Jesus as a symbol for and way to joy and life.

    Thanks again all, looking forward to the continuing conversation.

    Oh, and leave it to the one UU poster to quote the Doobie Brothers ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah...you're right on about substitionary atonement. Absolutely. Did I tell you about Rohr's take on this? If not, I blogged about it here: http://musings-musings-musings.blogspot.com/2008/08/atonement-incarnation-and-despair-of.html

    I think it's a beautiful re-understanding of the life and death of Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I used to dabble in attending UU churches and I was one of those people you refer to who was turned off by the seeming negativity towards Christianity, which contravened the ostensible respect for different paths that is supposed to be a part of the UU tradition. In reality, thought, I can't say that I'm someone who "loves" Jesus, but I am drawn to the Christian traditions, myths, and symbols, and for me Jesus pointed the way. Ultimately, as a lower case unitarian, it isn't about worshiping Jesus but rather the God who Jesus pointed to, but regardless of that the Christian tradition is something that I feel drawn to participating in, and what I commonly see in UU churches is at best a deconstruction of Christianity rather than a participatory celebration of God within the scope of Christian myths and symbols. I am not sure how much UUism can honor that impulse in me to participate within the Christian traditions. I have a kind of UU orientation in many ways, but I am not a UU; and at the same time I find myself interested in Christianity but can't say that talk about "loving Jesus" works for me either. So I think that ultimately I am one of those people who just don't really fit into any religious community and I just remain a religious freelancer.

    I do think it is interesting to find UU Christian clergy on the internet who write about their faith. I don't know if there is a resurgence of interest in Christianity among UUs or if that 10% figure that I heard 20 years ago remains more or less the same today.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I stand with Towanda on this one: I love Jesus. UUs need to separate the historical Jesus from this "Prince of Peace" over whom wars are waged. (The irony is too painful to make light of it.)

    Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong and now Deepak Chopra, in "The Third Jesus," all have tried to capture the "real Jesus," the Jesus I can walk beside, the Jesus I take into my heart.

    Historically, he was a Jewish rabbi, a Jewish prophet, who spoke in parables, saying the most radical things, such as in Luke 6:29: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other one also ..." (NRSV)

    It is not JESUS that UUs have a problem with, it is this Christianity that sprang up after Jesus' death. As Gandhi said, and I paraphrase the bumper sticker on which I saw this: "I like your Jesus, but I don't like your Christianity."

    So, I think we mix it all up, as Christians do, too. The man, the message, the work. We need to rethink all of this. Chopra's book is a very good start for most folks.

    I'm a Unitarian Universalist. I'm also at the Iliff School of Theology, 3rd year, w/ Gretchen (beautiful blog, btw).

    And folks: I love that man Jesus. (It's your Christianity I don't like so much, to paraphrase Gandhi, again.)

    ReplyDelete