Stations of the Cross and Paul

Lest you think I'm combining these two topics, I included both the Stations of the Cross and Paul in my title today because I want to address both of these separate and distinct topics.

This morning I went along as co-teacher on a field trip with our 5th/6th grade RE class to an outdoor retreat center at a Catholic church so that we could walk the Stations of the Cross. (FYI, the Stations of the Cross is a 14-stop walk that symbolizes the walk that Jesus made through Jerusalem on Good Friday on his way to his execution.) We took 8 of our young people and 6 adults. Of course, we framed it all in our UU perspective, but I have to say it is one of the few experiences that I've had at the UU church which really struck me to the core. Most of what I do at the UU church feels so spiritually dry and empty that this was an amazing and blessed departure. I love having Jesus as part of my church experience, which at the UU church is rare. After all, it *is* Palm Sunday.

Then this afternoon was the monthly meeting of my UU Christian Circle. Our discussion topic for the day was Paul. I have to say that I haven't been a fan a Paul. I have attributed much of what I feel is wrong with the modern Christian church to Paul. Our discussion today (based on the Living the Questions curriculum developed by the United Methodist Church) has caused me to rethink Paul and makes me want to go back and reread the Pauline parts of the New Testament. What I learned was two earth-shattering and important things.

First, of the 13 letters often attributed to Paul, scholars only think 7 were actually written by Paul himself. The other 6 are believed to have been written later by followers of Paul who adapted his message to soften Paul's message of radical grace. So it is possible that the misogynist and homophobic statements attributed to Paul may actually have come from his followers who were trying to make Paul's teachings fit in a patriarchal, conservative society.

The second thing I learned was about the mistranslation of the word Pistis from the original text. This word was translated originally as "faith in" as in having "faith in Jesus" being the key to salvation. But in reality the closer translation would have been "faithfulness of". So the key to salvation was in believing in the "faithfulness of Jesus". If the scriptures had been translated that way all along, the emphasis would have been in following the teachings of Jesus rather than worshiping and deifying the man. Christianity and the western world would have been a totally different thing if not for that one mistranslation.

I must reread the New Testament...

Knowing God *is* the reward

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a talk (lecture seems like too formal a word) by co-authors Philip Gulley and James Mulholland at my church. Together they have authored If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person and If God Is Love: Rediscovering Grace in an Ungracious World. I'd read both of these books some time ago and consider them among the few transformative spiritual books that I have read on my journey. They helped me to define who I am and what I believe.

I was almost ecstatic when I learned that Gulley and Mulholland would be speaking at my church. While their books are gaining attention nationally, they are actually located not far from where I live. This is their home territory. They are just as entertaining in person as they are in their books.

Many things were said. Much of what they said was material from their books that I'd already become familiar with. I sat there nodding my head a lot. One thing they said which really put the whole thing in crystal clear terms for me was talking about our relationship with God.

Some believe our relationship with God is all about fear. We should fear a wrathful God and go about our lives trying to avoid his punishment. Others believe our relationship is about reward. We should jump through this hoop or that hoop in order to appease God and thus, gain his "eternal" reward. But what Mulholland suggested was that just knowing God *is* the reward. We participate in religion and spirituality not to appease an angry God or to manipulate God into giving us something, but we participate out of love for God and the joy that we are able to know God.

Another meaningful thing that was said was about their opinions of a possible afterlife. They pointed out that all discussion about an afterlife is speculation because no one can know until they die. But our opinions about an afterlife greatly impact how we treat other people in this life. It is for that reason that we should think about what we believe and why and how that motivates us to live in this life.

Very cool discussion.

Starting a new church year

Even though it meant cutting into what little cash we had on hand to buy gas for the van, we made our way to church yesterday. We are wanting to start this year off right. It was a very uplifting day and I'm glad we went.

The topic of the service was "Who Wrote the Bible?", a fairly overt Christian service for our congregation. I was very interested, but expected an academic snore-fest, frankly. But I'll take any little nugget I can get and I'm trying to get in the habit of giving the benefit of doubt rather than jumping to judgment. Big J, the religious humanist with Native American spiritualism tendencies, was not looking forward to the service but went along as a commitment to start going to church more often. He did mention some moments of discomfort related to the baggage he brings from a conservative Christian upbringing. I imagine his discomfort was milder than that of some in our congregation.

In our congregation it is our custom to keep everyone together through the opening hymn, lighting the chalice, reciting the covenant, welcome and announcements and then a Children's Focus story. After that, the children are released to go to their RE classes. Yesterday's Children's Focus was the Old Testament story about Daniel in the lion's den. I personally thought it was great to hear a bible story in church and see that its message (as interpreted by our Worship Associate) was totally in line with our UU values: if you believe something in your heart, you have the right and should stand up for that belief and not let others forbid you from it.

The main service itself was interesting. It was not as academic and boring as I feared (except for one reading with lots of convoluted big words because we're "so smart"). It wasn't terribly informative for me because I've studied the bible so much on my own already. I was already aware of the theories of multiple authorship of the Old Testament and the J, E, P, and D versions. But it was absolutely fantastic to hear our minister say that the bible has stood the test of time because it has something meaningful and worthwhile to say and that it was never intended to be read literally but rather metaphorically. I sat there nodding my head throughout the service. And the postlude after the service was a wonderful piano arrangement of Amazing Grace. These things are such a rarity in our church that I was brought to tears just sitting there basking in it all.

Coffee hour afterward is also good for the soul. I had a friend come up to me and whisper that she is thinking about starting up a monthly prayer group to meet once a month before the service and she wondered if I'd be interested. Hallelujah! While the number of UU Christians at our church is small, there are lots of people who are "spiritual" and believe in some sort of God. Lots of spiritual talk is left out of the services (with yesterday being a notable exception) because of a very vocal athiest minority. (My friend says that only 19% of the congregation self-identified as Humanist - a fact I found very surprising.) Anyway, those of us with a more spiritual hunger are going to have to join together to find ways to fill our own needs. I am so excited to find others who, while maybe not theologically the same as me, are interested in bringing more spirituality into their lives.

I was happy and basking in the afterglow of the morning on the way home. I asked the boys about their RE classes. D is in the kindergarten class and they are doing the "Stories about God" curriculum this year. He was telling me that they talked about how, "God is everywhere: in the volcanoes, in rainbows, in the oceans, and oh, in people." :-) E is in the 5th/6th grade class and they are studying Jesus and the "Kingdom of Equals" (a.k.a. New Testament) this year. He said they discussed what Jesus might have looked like and how different cultures have portrayed him over history. They also watched a scene from a movie called The Nativity. His only comment was that afterward, one boy suggested they watch Monte Python's Life of Brian. ;-) The class (which happened to be all boys this week) loved the idea and they were all familiar with the Monte Python movies. Gotta love UU kids.

Serendipitous Christianity book discovery

I tried posting this the other day. I sat for at least an hour typing up my thoughts about this wonderful book I discovered. Then I looked up at the screen and it was all gone. Those of you who use Blogger, don’t be fooled by their new “autosave” feature. Blogger “autosaved” what I had written, but it cut it off after the first sentence. An hour’s worth of work was gone. So now I’ve decided to draft in Word and then cut and paste it into my blog so it won’t (hopefully!) happen again. Anyway, on to my original (albeit reconstructed) post…

****************************************

At the library the other day, I was browsing the "New Books" shelf when I stumbled upon the book 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You : (but can’t because he needs the job) by Rev. Oliver “Buzz” Thomas. I’d read somewhere that it is true that what is largely understood and taught in seminaries these days rarely makes it to the pulpit because most people don’t want to hear it. So I was intrigued by the title and wanted to see what the author had to say. Here are just a few points that I’ll paraphrase (unless I indicate it is a direct quote):

* As far as the Creationism vs. Evolution debate goes, it is like comparing apples to oranges. Creationism is a religious concept and religion is about finding meaning, purpose and moral truth in life. Evolution is a scientific concept and science is about identifying observable and falsifiable facts about the world around us. It is only when we think of creationism as a scientific concept or evolution as a religious concept that we run into trouble. The two could (should?) coexist without cancelling each other out.

* Our purpose for being here is to treasure our humanity. Thomas cites Ecclesiastes with giving four directives: “(1) eat, drink, and be merry; (2) work hard; (3) enjoy living with the person you love; and (4) fear God and keep his commandments.” Further to that he discusses what might be meant by fearing God and keeping his commandments. Jesus trumps the ante when he said we should love God and our neighbors as ourselves. We can express our love for God through worship, singing, and prayer. He discusses how prayer is about being with God. It is about talking and listening…and not so much about asking (a point I really loved). The thing about prayer is that it doesn’t benefit God; it benefits us. It transforms us into people who think more like God and who work as God’s hands in the world. We must remember Jesus’ instruction to love who Jesus referred to as “the least of these”: those who are outcasts of society or who have been dealt more suffering than others.

* Thomas discusses the Bible and goes into details I already knew about (that it is made up of several different books by different authors and wasn’t put together into one book – with several different versions at that – until much later). He mentions problems with trying to read it literally as the inerrant word of God (inconsistencies and scientific impossibilities, for example). But he asserts how the Bible serves as a human witness to the experience of God at that time in history. There is a lot of wisdom contained in the Bible and you don’t have to believe that it really happened to believe it is true.

* He mentions how Christianity has historically (and sometimes contemporarily) marginalized some groups like women, slaves, and homosexuals. The Bible was once used to justify slavery (a fact which causes many people problems again with the inerrancy concept). But just like times have changed society’s opinion of owning slaves, so has its opinion about the submission of women changed since biblical times. At the time the biblical stories were being written, women were considered property owned by men. They were not allowed to participate in government, religion, etc. To stand up for women’s rights at that time would mark one as a rebel. The books of the bible were written to reflect that view. Of course, Jesus, the one person in the Bible whose example we *should* follow, obviously didn’t feel that way about women. Women played an important role in his ministry. That fact has been downplayed considerably by subsequent organizers of the religion of Christianity which speaks to attachment to the old systems of belief that still existed (exist). In today’s day and age, women are no longer considered to be lower than men by society and, therefore, should not be considered lower by the church. And the verses in the Bible that have been used to limit the rights of homosexuals did not come from Jesus. He spoke against many things: “money, lust, revenge, divorce, prayer, fasting, and a thousand other subjects (with an especially large number on self-righteousness), but there is nothing on homosexuality." Instead, Jesus spoke about the importance of how we treat each other. We should not judge others – that is for God alone to do. And he told us how important it was to love our neighbors as ourselves. That alone should be enough to tell us what is really important.

Those are just a few of the big ideas I got from this book. Much of what I read wasn’t surprising. Some of it I’d read before and most of it I’d thought before. But it was interesting to read a minister write these things. It was especially interesting to me to read in his bio that he is a Baptist minister. I was surprised to find a Baptist minister with these values. (I don’t know if he is American Baptist or Southern Baptist, but he does mention the Southern Baptist Convention a couple of times in his writing.) For me this was yet another reminder that I shouldn’t jump to conclusions about someone else’s beliefs.

I highly recommend this book to others. It’s a short read – only 108 pages – and I read the whole thing in one afternoon.

My spiritual cold shower

I feel that I've been remiss in my duties as a UU Blogger. I haven't had much to say lately that one could consider spiritual. (I know that some UU's consider things like hiking in the woods and getting back to nature "spiritual", but that hasn't been my own experience...yet anyway.)

I have to admit there is a reason for this. About a month ago we received the movie Jesus Camp as part of our Blockbuster Total Access membership. It had a deep and profound effect on me in a way that I don't think was at all positive. It kind of served as a cold shower to cool the flames of my newfound passion for Christianity.

I was disturbed by the way the beautiful message of love that Jesus taught has been twisted so severely into a hateful "us vs. them" mentality. I was also really upset by the way they are indoctrinating the young who are still in their formative stage with a message so based on intolerance. I really have trouble understanding how they can believe that Jesus, were he here today, would advocate this movement. I look at the woman who leads this "Jesus Camp" and shake my head at some of the things she says. But then I see the young children being so emotionally stirred while those emotions are tied very closely with their philosophy. It is no wonder that some people grow up to be like the camp leader when they are taught these things and make an emotional investment at such a young and impressionable age. It literally made my chest ache to watch the young girl who so desperately wanted to convert people because she'd been told it was the right way to be and couldn't seem to understand the reaction of the people on the street who resisted her. Yikes.

That movie jarred me. I noticed that after watching that movie, there were subtle differences in my life. For a long time now I've listened to contemporary Christian radio in the van when I'm running errands. Most of the music really moves me. I'm not terribly connected to the ones that focus on life after death, but the ones that celebrate God's presence in life speak to me. But the talk between the songs really puts me off. I've noticed when they do their "news", they always give three stories. The first two are what I would consider real news items about something going on in the world. The third is always Christian in nature and has a tone of "look how good we are" to them. Lots of reports of missionaries in other countries "spreading The Word" and bringing people to Christ. Or it's about some Christian group overcoming political obstacles like abortion laws, etc. It is so obviously propaganda that it always bothered me. Now I cannot even listen to the station. It feels like part of the Jesus Camp machine. I've gone back to listening to Radio Disney.

I think what upsets me about this movie the most is the fear that the average Joe American may watch this and think that the people in this movie represent what it means to be a Christian. While there are many people who fall into this category, I am finding more and more people who consider themselves Christian but are appalled at this kind of behavior. Jesus came to tell us that the very most important thing is to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you let that be the guiding principle of your life, how can you belong to a group that says the majority of humans on earth are doomed for eternity? How can you believe in a God who would do that to his creation? I just can't get my mind around it.

Anyway, I was so bothered by this that I had to take a figurative step back for a little while to take a breather.

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.

Why be Christian?

I recently recommended Marcus J. Borg's book The Heart of Christianity to some friends of mine with the comment that it changed my life and after reading it I was finally able to refer to myself as a UU Christian. After I said it, I began thinking about the book again. It has been over a year since I'd read it and I'd forgotten details - even though I remembered how generally moved I was by it. So I read it again and finished it yesterday.

I could say so many things about it, but this morning the question rumbling around in my head is "Why be Christian?" which is the final section in the last chapter of the book. A basic message of the book is that religions are different ways of mediating God and most are valid but are culturally/liguistically different. The question, then, seems to be why be Christian instead of Jew or Muslim or Buddhist, etc.? The answer for Borg is that Christianity is the religious tradition into which he was born and feels most natural for him. I wasn't born into any real tradition in my immediate family, but all of my extended family were Christian as were/are the majority of the community I live in. It is a cultural thing. Do I think it is better or more right than those other religions? No, but it works for me in a way that doesn't feel fake like Buddhist practices or Pagan ceremonies.

Then I've had fellow UU's counter with why do I need to declare myself anything? Isn't UU enough as a faith? Well, frankly, no. I think I need more of what Borg calls sacraments to mediate God (scriptural writing, prayer, symbolism, etc.) UU's are just not big on that stuff. When I limit myself to strictly UU services, I have a really hard time connecting with God. It's really very frustrating. On the other hand, the UU values are very important to me. I agree that the number one guiding principle in my own life (like in the 7 UU principles) is to respect the inherent worth and dignity in every person. I don't see that in other faiths. And so I am UU.

So Christianity, and particulary UU Christianity, works for me unlike anything else I've encountered.

God the Mother?

I've been away from the blog world this week because we were trying to catch a little bit of vacation time. Tuesday we went to Cincinnati, OH to Paramount's King's Island for an exhausting but fun day. All the walking took its toll on me and it has taken me a few days to get back to my normal self. Also youth soccer season here is starting and both of the younger boys had their first practices (separate teams). Finally, yesterday Big J decided to take all three boys fishing for the first annual family fishing trip. Everyone caught fish and had fun. I got to spend the day alone watching chick flicks and blog surfing.

During the time I've been away from the computer, I've had several ideas and topics pop into my head. I'm still cogitating over some of them and I'll get back to that.

I just this morning checked over some of the UU Blogs and someone (maybe ChaliceChick) posted about an upcoming UU Blog Carnival with possible topics. One that jumped out at me was the reaction I had the first time I heard God referred to as female. This is one that gets me.

I consider myself a relative feminist. I mean, considering where I live and the majority of people I interact with, I am about as feminist as you can get (fellow UU congregants notwithstanding). But in the big spectrum, I'm starting to get feelings that I am more conservative than I previously thought. Sometimes that bothers me. I don't like feeling like I am conservative. But then I ask myself what is wrong with being conservative? I think I have too many close-minded connections that confuse the matter.

Anyway, back to my original thought...when I saw God referred to as "she" I almost literally rolled my eyes. It just seemed silly to me. Like the author is Trying Too Hard. While I don't think God is male, I also don't think God is female. And switching back and forth between two genders makes God seem schizophrenic.

I don't have a problem referring to God the Father (but then I love my father so that image isn't problematic for me). The whole thing is metaphoric anyway so I have trouble seeing why it even matters so much. It seems to me that only those with open gender wounds are the ones up in arms about it. In my life experience, a father figure isn't bad.

I don't mind God in the feminine, but it does make the whole thing a little less serious for me and a little distracting from the main spiritual message of whatever I'm reading (generally I only encounter this in print). Well, now that I think of it, some of the Pagan-oriented services I've been to recently have invoked the name Mother Earth and I had the same reaction. I know this really works for some people, but it just doesn't work for me. It seems too fabricated. Strange, but the more traditional language doesn't.

Ok, I think I got it

Well, as much as anyone ever can get such a contradiction as there being one God but three persons of God. Huh?

Anyway, the explanation that my untrained brain came up with from my reading is that there are three aspects of God - God the Father (a.k.a. the part of God who is not me and/or other people), God the Son (a.k.a. the part of God who became/becomes human through Jesus and other humans), and the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. the part of God shared by the two as in the air that we breathe and all of our interactions with the world).

Now granted, I realize this probably isn't totally theologically sound for all those seminarians out there. But spiritually speaking, this is a college-level concept and I'm still in kindergarten so give me a break. ;-)

This trinitarian thingy

I have been reading Christian Meditation by James Finley. It is a wonderful book, BTW. It is a discussion of contemplative prayer based on what Finley learned as a student of Thomas Merton. So far the book has referenced the book The Cloud of Unknowing as well as St. John of the Cross. Between these two and St. Teresa of Avila and others, my reading list is growing longer and longer.

Anyway, today after reading about the oneness with God brought about through meditation, he went on to explain the concept of the Trinity in light of this different perspective. I struggled to get my mind around it this morning as I was reading it. Now, several hours later I couldn't begin to make sense of it. I'm going to have to go back and reread it. The only thing I can remember about it is that, explained in this way, I was kinda able to understand the idea of the Trinity for the very first time. But talk about making your brain hurt. Whew!

Love Your Enemies

One of my favorite things to do is to sit outside in the mornings when the weather is right and drink my coffee and read and be mindful of everything around me. It is the time of day that I feel closest to God. I am able to be alone (usually) because the kids are still in bed and Big J is either at work or inside doing something. I enjoy things I used to ignore because I was so busy : the sound of the birds in the trees, a dog playing in a nearby yard, the slant of the sun as it moves over my neighbor's roof, the dew before it dries off the grass. I make time to notice these things for the wonders they are. I also like to use this time to do my lectionary readings.

This morning I was catching up on a few readings from this past week. I read what I think is probably one of my favorite parts of the Bible because it pretty much sums up what I think is the point of it all. Luke 6:27-36. This is the part where Jesus talks about loving your enemies. It includes the Golden Rule: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31 (NIV). It goes on to say that "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?" Luke 6:32 (NIV). In other words, it is easy to love those who love you, those who agree with you. Where is the challenge there? The real challenge is in loving those who do not love you or agree with you. Our world would be a much better place if more people took this particular passage more seriously. It seems like lately everyone (even supposedly religious, Godly people) are all about finding reasons to divide from other people. They want to turn away from those who are different from themselves. What we really need is for people to do what Jesus said and not turn away from those with whom we disagree but turn toward them. Show them love and compassion. We should "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:36 (NIV).

What a wonderful world that would be! One might call it a Kingdom of God!