Thanks a lot, Eve!
Yesterday afternoon was the monthly meeting of our UU Christian Circle. This was our third meeting. We've been taking turns meeting at someone's home and we take turns coming up with the topic for discussion. We aren't very rigid in our planning. The person leading the discussion usually comes with a particular topic in mind and brings along some readings to share. Then we discuss while sitting around sipping coffee and a light snack. Yesterday, we had a good discussion on the general topic, but then our discussion sort of meandered all over the place.
The focus topic this time was original sin and the whole idea that women have been saddled with the blame (and accompanying guilt) and second-class citizenship because of the whole concept of the fall from the garden of Eden. First, the leader brought up the two different creation stories. The first (Genesis 1:26-27) sets men and women up as fairly equal whereas the second (Genesis 2:5-24) creates man first and then, secondly woman is created to keep man company. She also shared with us the Jewish midrash of Lilith. Supposedly the legend of Lilith was created to explain the difference between the first creation story and the second. Lilith was the first woman, but she wouldn't be subordinate to Adam. So she was sent off and Eve was created to be Adam's subordinate companion. Of course, Eve went on to break the rules and get us all banished from paradise while Lilith is reported to have gone off and spawned with demons. We women have gotten a bad rap from the beginning. ;-)
One issue we were discussing was what Unitarians and Universalists think about the concept of sin. By that we didn't so much mean "Unitarian Universalists" who probably have largely done away with the idea of sin anyway. We were thinking more of our traditions' ancestors. How did those liberal Christians understand sin? I shared my understanding of sin being a separation from God due to not following the direction God would want us to follow. They mentioned the (Greek?) definition of sin as "missing the mark". We discussed the belief that God doesn't intercede in daily life, but is there urging us to do the right thing. It is all a matter of us being willing and able to "listen" to those urgings and do the right thing. I think we generally accepted the idea that sinning results from not "listening" to God, but being separated from God in the sense that we aren't doing what God would urge. We're missing the mark.
I don't remember exactly how we veered into this, but we also had a good discussion about UU hymns. I think we were discussing how some hymns have been changed to be gender-neutral. I stepped out on a limb and mentioned how disappointing it is to be at a UU Christmas Eve service and hear these beloved old Christmas carols changed to be more PC. I don't like it and I think it is inappropriate. I think it disrespects the creator of the hymn. Another member felt similarly to me and brought up the fact that we are much more likely to rewrite Christian hymns than Jewish or Pagan songs. This led to a discussion of how various religious traditions are treated within UUism and how criticism of things associated with Christianity is much more likely to occur than criticism of other traditions. Yes, it speaks to a history of injuries, but I find it offensive and I am not alone in that. I also complained that in the last couple of years our UU church's Easter service has become little more than a service from any other Sunday. As a UU Christian, that bothers me. I've gone to other Christian churches for those services but I am always left feeling sad because the meaning, for me, in communion is sharing it with my community. The rebirth of hope is something I wish I could share with my home community and it makes me sad that I don't feel I can.
The fact is that certain aspects of Christianity (not the least of which is its patriarchy) have wounded people in the past. Where I live that is what has led a lot of people to the UU church. But I think it is possible that we hold onto the pain and let it guide us through hatred and intolerance refusing to "get over it" or even getting angry at the suggestion that we "get over it". But we can *forgive* those imperfect humans who've hurt us and choose to let it go and live in today, let go of the past, and make a better choice for the future. I keep seeing people choosing to hold onto old grudges. That cannot or will not let the hurt go to make room for a more loving way of being in the world. Maybe those who are hurting hold onto the notion that forgiving sends the message that what has been done is okay. But the irony of this attitude is that it only prolongs the pain of the sufferer. You are suffering...those who you feel hurt you don't suffer. You cannot change what has already happened. You have the choice to say it is wrong, to let it go, and to decide to live a more positive loving Christianity and put that out into the world. The Christianity of the future doesn't have to be the same as the past. It is only in choosing to hold onto the past that we allow that to happen. Of course, we may not be able to turn the hearts of all Christians, some of whom don't have a problem with its negative past. But we each have the power to make changes in our own little worlds. We just have to decide to do it.
The focus topic this time was original sin and the whole idea that women have been saddled with the blame (and accompanying guilt) and second-class citizenship because of the whole concept of the fall from the garden of Eden. First, the leader brought up the two different creation stories. The first (Genesis 1:26-27) sets men and women up as fairly equal whereas the second (Genesis 2:5-24) creates man first and then, secondly woman is created to keep man company. She also shared with us the Jewish midrash of Lilith. Supposedly the legend of Lilith was created to explain the difference between the first creation story and the second. Lilith was the first woman, but she wouldn't be subordinate to Adam. So she was sent off and Eve was created to be Adam's subordinate companion. Of course, Eve went on to break the rules and get us all banished from paradise while Lilith is reported to have gone off and spawned with demons. We women have gotten a bad rap from the beginning. ;-)
One issue we were discussing was what Unitarians and Universalists think about the concept of sin. By that we didn't so much mean "Unitarian Universalists" who probably have largely done away with the idea of sin anyway. We were thinking more of our traditions' ancestors. How did those liberal Christians understand sin? I shared my understanding of sin being a separation from God due to not following the direction God would want us to follow. They mentioned the (Greek?) definition of sin as "missing the mark". We discussed the belief that God doesn't intercede in daily life, but is there urging us to do the right thing. It is all a matter of us being willing and able to "listen" to those urgings and do the right thing. I think we generally accepted the idea that sinning results from not "listening" to God, but being separated from God in the sense that we aren't doing what God would urge. We're missing the mark.
I don't remember exactly how we veered into this, but we also had a good discussion about UU hymns. I think we were discussing how some hymns have been changed to be gender-neutral. I stepped out on a limb and mentioned how disappointing it is to be at a UU Christmas Eve service and hear these beloved old Christmas carols changed to be more PC. I don't like it and I think it is inappropriate. I think it disrespects the creator of the hymn. Another member felt similarly to me and brought up the fact that we are much more likely to rewrite Christian hymns than Jewish or Pagan songs. This led to a discussion of how various religious traditions are treated within UUism and how criticism of things associated with Christianity is much more likely to occur than criticism of other traditions. Yes, it speaks to a history of injuries, but I find it offensive and I am not alone in that. I also complained that in the last couple of years our UU church's Easter service has become little more than a service from any other Sunday. As a UU Christian, that bothers me. I've gone to other Christian churches for those services but I am always left feeling sad because the meaning, for me, in communion is sharing it with my community. The rebirth of hope is something I wish I could share with my home community and it makes me sad that I don't feel I can.
The fact is that certain aspects of Christianity (not the least of which is its patriarchy) have wounded people in the past. Where I live that is what has led a lot of people to the UU church. But I think it is possible that we hold onto the pain and let it guide us through hatred and intolerance refusing to "get over it" or even getting angry at the suggestion that we "get over it". But we can *forgive* those imperfect humans who've hurt us and choose to let it go and live in today, let go of the past, and make a better choice for the future. I keep seeing people choosing to hold onto old grudges. That cannot or will not let the hurt go to make room for a more loving way of being in the world. Maybe those who are hurting hold onto the notion that forgiving sends the message that what has been done is okay. But the irony of this attitude is that it only prolongs the pain of the sufferer. You are suffering...those who you feel hurt you don't suffer. You cannot change what has already happened. You have the choice to say it is wrong, to let it go, and to decide to live a more positive loving Christianity and put that out into the world. The Christianity of the future doesn't have to be the same as the past. It is only in choosing to hold onto the past that we allow that to happen. Of course, we may not be able to turn the hearts of all Christians, some of whom don't have a problem with its negative past. But we each have the power to make changes in our own little worlds. We just have to decide to do it.
Labels: Feminism, Theology, UU Christian Circle
posted by Mama G @ 5:33 PM
1 Comments:
At 2:46 AM,
Mystical Seeker said…
I have found when I attended UU services a few places in the past that there often seemed to be resistance or even hostility by some members towards introducing any Christian language into worship. I also found an absence of anything Christian at the UU services in San Francisco (and that includes an Easter service I attended a few years ago).
I imagined that other parts of the country might have different kinds of compositions of membership and different levels of openness to Christianity. It sounds great that you have found a group of UU Christians where you live. In my city, San Francisco, there is just one UU church, and from what I can tell Christianity seems to be pretty absent. It has a CUUPS group and lots of social justice activities, but I didn't see any evidence of any UU Christians there (maybe they exist and I just missed it.) The Easter service I attended there a few years ago pretty much avoided any Christian references, but talked a lot about things like spring and renewal.
The very first church service I attended in my adult life, by the way, was a UU fellowship that met on Fall Creek Boulevard in Indianapolis. It was in 1988 (I was 28 at the time), and they had the head of the ICLU speaking that day. It wasn't a very religious service, as you can imagine. :) Still, that small step of attending a UU service of any sort whatsoever was my own entryway out of years of avoiding having anything to do with religion.
I finally felt personally more comfortable in a highly liberal UCC congregation than in a UU service. But to be honest, I sometimes feel a little too heretical for that church, and I sometimes feel caught in the middle between UCC and UU, although in conversations with members I discovered that some have attended UU services, and one person refered to UCC as "Unitarians Considering Christ", so I realized that there are other heretics in my midst besides me. The services use language that is sometimes more overtly orthodox than I am, but ultimately I felt more comfortable there being on the heretical fringe of a liberal Christian congregation than on the Christian fringe of a non-Christian congregation.
Anyway, I hope you can work out what works for you within your own religious experience. Everyone has to find what works for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home