What to
Keep and What to Throw Away from Christianity
Sunday, February 1, 2004
The Rev. Gretchen Woods
READING
from
“The Transient and the Permanent in Christianity” by Theodore Parker
Another
instance of the transitoriness of doctrines, taught as Christian, is found in
those which relate to the nature and authority of Christ. One ancient party has
told as, that he is the infinite God; another, that he is both God and man; a
third, that he was a man, the son of Joseph and Mary, born as we are; tempted
like ourselves; inspired, as we may be, if we will pay the price. Each of the
former parties believed its doctrine on this head was infallibly true, and
formed the essential substance of Christianity, and we one of the essential
conditions of salvation, though scarce any two distinguished teachers, of
ancient or modern times, agree in their expression of this truth.
Almost
every sect, that has ever been, makes Christianity rest on the personal
authority of Jesus, and not the immutable truth of the doctrines themselves, or
the authority of God, who sent him into the world. Yet it seems difficult to
conceive any reason, why moral and religious truths should rest for their
support on the personal authority of their revealer, any more than the truths
of science on that of him who makes them known first or most clearly. It is
hard to see why the great truths of Christianity rest on the personal authority
of Jesus, more than the axioms of geometry rest on the personal authority of
Euclid, or Archimedes. The authority of Jesus, as of all teachers, one would
naturally think, must rest on the truth of his words, and not their truth on
his authority. (Prophets of Religious Liberalism: Channing, Emerson, Parker. Introduced by Conrad Wright, p. 129.)
SERMON
What
to Keep and What to Throw Away from Christianity
When
I graduated from college and married
(all within six days), I went in search of a religious community that
would help me through my every day life. I had been going to a liberal
Presbyterian church in Derry, Pennsylvania while I was in school, but when I
moved to be with my new husband in Schenectady, New York, I found that the
traditional Christian Churches there left me cold. I was uncomfortable with the
sexism, the language used in the liturgy, and the frigid welcome I received.
Then
I had the conversation with Rosemary DiAngelo, that sent me to the Unitarian
Church in town. I was immediately converted and became active, singing in the
choir (big surprise!), and even helping out in the Religious Education program
a little bit. I was “in for life.” That was clear, though I never foresaw the
degree to which I was “in for life!”
Still,
I was often uncomfortable with the Christian bashing I heard, particularly
within the congregation. All of my family of origin was still Presbyterian—still
is, more or less—and I still liked Jesus, though not much of the doctrine and
dogma I heard in those other churches.
I said I was a Unitarian by evolution, not revolution, and that I had
left Christianity because I loved Jesus too much to accept what was done in his
name.
As
the years passed, I accepted my call to ministry and studied with Jesuits. I
learned that my intuitions about Jesus were affirmed by contemporary biblical
scholarship, especially that of Norman Perrin. Jesus, as I understand him, was
radically in favor of reforming Judaism to re-emphasize the needs of the poor,
the imprisoned, the widows and children, as the Jewish prophets had. Then, I
came upon the work of the Jesus Seminar, and learned that Jesus was even more
akin to Unitarianism and Universalism than I had imagined as a child. He loved
life and the universe and felt intimately connected to it. He felt God inside
and all around him, and indicated that all of us could feel that.
I
attended other UU churches and found that many of them, especially on the East
coast, still felt comfortable with Jesus as a source of religious inspiration.
I did not have to agree with the denial and or rejection of Jesus to be a “good
Unitarian.”
I
have made the case before that we need to be open to the religious insights of
all religions, including Christianity, despite the fact that some of us came in
revolt against that particular religion. So this morning, I should like to
consider, as did Theodore Parker in his sermon for the ordination of the Rev.
Charles C. Shackford in the Hawes Place Church in Boston on May 19, 1841, what
to keep from Christianity, given our UU values, and what we may properly let
go.
First, let us consider what we may let
go. When I came into Unitarian Universalism, I discovered that many folks were
adamantly denying anything that could not be explained scientifically: the virgin
birth, the miracles, and the resurrection. That made sense to me, with
judicious limitations. The virgin birth was a convention of the “Divine Man”
theories of the Greeks and can well be set aside. Here is what Parker said
about the virgin birth:
I see the story of his supernatural conception, as a
picture of the belief of the early Christian church, and find the divine
character in the general instructions and heavenly life of Christ. (John Edward
Dirks. The Critical Theology of Theodore Parker. p. 157.)
So
Parker did not care about the birth story, only the character he saw in Jesus.
These
days science records spontaneous remissions of illnesses as part of the
mind/body connection, which may not be unlike Jesus’ healing miracles. But that
is not really the point. The point is that Jesus’ teachings should stand on
their own merit, not on his ability to perform miracles. Here again Parker is
succinct:
I need no miracle to convince me that the sun shines,
and just as little do I need a miracle to convince me of the divinity of Jesus
and his doctrines, to which a miracle, as I look at it, can add just nothing.
(Ibid.)
The
resurrection was actually a later addition to the Christian Gospels. It appears
as a second ending in Mark, the first traditional gospel written, and then was
expanded in the following gospels. But, as Parker writes, “Even the miracle of
the resurrection does not prove the immortality of the soul.” (Ibid.) Many
Unitarian Universalists over the centuries agree with Parker’s perspective.
There
are many traditions about Jesus that may be let go, not the least of these is
the insistence that we should believe in him because he performed miracles and
was the “Son of God.” The miracles I have already addressed. Theodore Parker
caused a sensation and great controversy in 1841 by asserting that the value of
Jesus’s message lay in its inherent truth, not in his being the son of God.
This is made clear by the reading for this morning. For this heresy, he was
banned from pulpit exchanges in the Boston area.
Looking
at this another way, Jesus offered an intimate relationship with Spirit, rather
than an emphasis upon law and tradition, despite what Christian churches for
millennia since have asserted. Jesus was concerned with how closely each of us
is related to our Source and how well we treated ourselves and one another,
rather than how well he fulfilled the prophecies of Jews.
Again
I turn to Parker’s ordination sermon:
In an age of corruption, as all ages are, Jesus stood
and looked up to God. There was nothing between him and the Father of all; no
old word, be it of Moses or Esaias, of a living Rabbi or Sanhedrin of Rabbis;
no sin or perverseness of the finite will. As the result of this virgin purity
of soul and perfect obedience, the light of God shone down into the very depths
of his soul, bringing all of the Godhead which flesh can receive. He would have
us do the same; worship with nothing between us and God; act, think, feel, live,
in perfect obedience to Him; and we never are Christians as he was the Christ, until we
worship, as Jesus did, with no mediator, with nothing between us and the Father
of all. He felt that God’s word was in him; that he was one with God. He told
what he saw – the Truth; he lived what he felt – a life of Love. The truth he
brought to light must have been always the same before the eyes of all-seeing
God, nineteen centuries before Christ, or nineteen centuries after him. A life
supported by the principle and quickened by the sentiment of religion, if true
to both, is always the same thing in Nazareth or New England. Now the divine
man received these truths from God; was illumined more clearly by “the light
that lighteneth every man”; combined or involved all the truths of Religion and
Morality in his doctrine, and made them manifest in his life. Then his words
and example passed into the world, and can no more perish than the stars be
wiped out of the sky. The truths he taught; his doctrines respecting man and
God; the relation between man and man, and man and God, with the duties that
grow out of that relation, are always the same, and can never change until man
ceases to be man, and creation vanishes into nothing. ( Parker, Ordination
address, pp. 141-142.)
Thus
Parker asserts that the message, not the man, and its inherent truth are what
should be important to us. Truth is truth, no matter who says it, and, for
Parker, Jesus said it best. We need not be put off by his use of words like
obedience and God, if we remember that Parker’s concern is recognizing the holy
in each of us and bringing it to the fore, rather than enabling us to be the
least we can.
I
should like to go beyond Parker for our 21st century understanding of what we
may keep from Christianity: I believe that, as human beings, we need to keep
and honor the magnificent affective
blessings of Christianity, whether it be the poetry of Hildegard von Bingen or
St. John of the Cross, which we shall hear next Sunday; or the paintings of
centuries of artists, including Leonardo daVinci and Michelangelo; or the music
of composers as diverse as J.S. Bach and Paul Simon. And let’s not overlook
architecture., as cathedrals throughout the centuries lift the spirits of
humanity.
Clearly,
Jesus called each person who was touched by the experience of him to feel a
presence within that convinced them they could be a far better person than they
had been. What he called God is a clear sense of value within. So not only
truth and beauty need to be kept from Christianity, but also a basic belief in
the potential for goodness in every person. Sound like “the inherent worth and
dignity of every person?” Certainly Jesus ‘s life is an invitation to become
all we can become.
Finally
I want to add another piece of Jesus’ message: that we don’t live in a vacuum.
We live in relation to others around us: “Even if you do it unto the least of
these, you do it unto me.” We need community as well as the values that derive
from recognizing that each person is a precious spirit before the
universe. If we live in connection with
our Source, however we experience it, we know we live in relationship. Our
lives are rich and full of life abundant.
I
struggle to find a contemporary example of the radical transition from feeling
powerless and useless in the world to recognizing that the divine is within.
This is the essence of Parker’s understanding of the Jesus experience. Perhaps
it is best understood through Ntozake Shange’s poem “for colored girls who have
considered suicide when the rainbow is enuf”:
i sat up one nite walkin a boarding house
screamin/cryin/ the ghost of another woman
who waz missin what I waz missin
i wanted to jump outta my bones
& be done wit myself
leave me alone
& go in the wind
it waz too much
i fell into a numbness
til the only tree I cd see
took me up in her branches
held me in the breeze
made me dawn dew
that chill at daybreak
the sun wrapped me up swingin rose light everywhere
the sky laid over me like a million men
i waz cold/ i waz burnin up/ a child
& endlessly weavin garments for the moon
wit my tears
i found god in myself
& i loved her/i loved her fiercely
I
suspect that what Nzotake Shange experienced with a tree is not unlike what
Jesus’ followers experienced: “Direct experience of that transcending mystery
and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit
and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life.
May
this ever be a place where people are invited into such experiences with
respect, responsibility and relish for the process.
So
Be It! Blessed Be!
Gretchen
Woods