Category: Christian faith

Posted on

One month on

It’s no secret that I’m politically liberal and like many of you have been stunned and disheartened by the first month of the current administration in the United States. But my role on this site is more pastoral than political, and besides there are others who can speak more eloquently and with greater detail than I can about what might come and how it may be responded to. What then is a faithful Christian response to the current situation?

First, I’ve made peace knowing that I cannot come up with a comprehensive solution and don’t expect you to have one either. Good ideas can quickly become fossils, and the moment requires nimbleness and discernment or else each of us will come overwhelmed, and then defeated. (We also have to be comfortable with language of conflict, or else we will delude ourselves about what is happening.)

That’s why — above all else — I remind myself of my core convictions. I need to know what I’m defending: not only the standards of American democracy, but social compact based on decency and mutual respect, characteristics the incumbent president sorely lacks. This is congruent with my faith, and beneficial to decent people of any faith or none. So I don’t have to hold myself to some pious and self-defeating false standard about what Christians should or should not do; I just need to know what I want at the end of this process. The common good, I suppose, above all else. That’s a work in progress, but it will be neither what we have now or what we have had recently.

Discernment like this is one tool on the path towards wisdom, and I’ve been thinking a lot about Jesus is saying in Matthew: “Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” (10:16) I’ve seen enough debilitating and catastrophizing rhetoric on the Left — sometimes with unproductive rage towards political opponents — to know that harmlessness or gentleness is necessary for an eventual solution to this crisis. Why? Because there are a lot of people with whom I might agree politically who have a spiritual knife in the hand, pointed towards their own hearts. This is misplaced energy: fear or rage taking the place of constructive action, even so simple as listening to those in Federal service or dependent upon Federal funding for their livelihoods, or preparing for the destruction of programs which may or may not be legitimately in the president’s purview. The performance of outrage benefits no one, including the performer.

The tone is this post is not accidental. If the president wishes his enemies destroyed, there is no easier path for him than they destroy themselves: emotionally, morally or spiritually. With Christians in all times, we bear the strain with humility and grace, relying on the prayers and example of those whose suffering is and was immeasurably greater. We will not increase our suffering by debasing ourselves, but rather uplifting one another. Christian vocation prepares us for stressful and painful moments, and it is a blessing and opportunity we might share with others who struggle deeply and without relief. If we should find ourselves better persons at the end of the current crisis, let us count it as specks of gold mixed with the ashes.

Posted on

Love Unrelenting: documentary and video channel

About a year ago, Steven HAuse interviewed me at Universalist National Memorial Church as part of his project to make a documentary — Love Unrelenting — about the theology and history of universal salvation. He gave me a head’s-up when he separately published the clips that didn’t fit into the documentary and then the film itself. But being sensitive about how I sound and look on video, and knowing that I would be sharing airtime with some of the leading figures of a revived universalist work, I just couldn’t watch it.

But I owed it to him to watch it, and used the cold weather to pull it up on YouTube; I’m glad I did. HAute set out the three usual Christian doctrines of human destiny: the “traditional option” eternal conscious torment, conditional immortality (also know as annihilationism) and universal reconciliation, and let proponents of each speak from their convictions. But the goal was to highlight universal reconciliation and so wrestled with the biblical, theological and ethical dimensions, introducing them in an approachable manner.

The audience is not Unitarian Universalists, or even our remaining Universalist Christians, but potential members of new generation of believers in universal reconciliation, many of whom come out of Evangelical backgrounds, and may or may not be interested in particular Universalist churches. (None I’ve seen express an interest in the UUA, and they often make the point to distinguish themselves from it.) The arguments and approaches are very familiar to any student of pre-1920s Universalism, which makes perfect sense as so many of those long-past Universalists would have walked the same path. Plus, it’s heartening to me to hear the same affirmations that God has both the desire and the power to save all; it can be lonely in this part of the vineyard. Like Simeon (today’s lectionary gospel), I know that this hope will never perish.

Also, I was cheered to see friends, colleagues, a seminary mate (not then universalist) and others I’ve corresponded with over the years. I saw for the first time footage and interviews from the Doujin (Dojin) Christian Church, Tokyo (Japanese language site): the last survivor of the Universalist Japan mission. In the extra clips, I saw for the first time video and interviews with Primitive Baptist Universalists. I am so happy and cheered. HAuse has made an incredible document; you should subscribe to his channel and watch these videos.

Posted on

We're not here for you to validate us…

So, my dear Unitarian Universalist Christians, see if this sounds familiar. You let your Christian faith be known at church or fellowship or what-have-you and someone asks “how does that work?” or “have you considered the United Church of Christ?” — or something actively negative, suggesting that you shouldn’t be there at all, as if Unitarian Universalism was a refuge for a mix of non-Christians. I thought about all of these after reading “More than just a starter church” at The Widow’s Mite-y Blog. Like her, I became a Christian when a Unitarian Universalist.

Anecdotally. there’s less of the overt hostility out there than there once was. Whether that’s true or not, and if so, whether that’s due to fewer hostile non-Christians, fewer Christians to be hostile to, or a real change of attitude is for others to discern. Plus, I’m a member of one of a handful of Christian churches in the Unitarian Universalist Association, so it’s not really a problem anymore.

But what remains isn’t acceptable. And it starts with the questions that together can but put under the heading, “Demonstrate that you really exist.” Unitarian Universalist Christians are a small part of a small denomination, and particularly outside New England you may not meet one in person. And there is decades of preaching and identity formation — again, especially outside of New England — that liberal religion was becoming something greater than Christianity, first incorporating it, and later transcending it. The actual reference to Christianity in the UUA Principles and Purposes was a political process — and a bit before my time — and not a given. Some people really, honestly believe that Christianity is beyond the pale.

Mix this with a “question everything (that’s convenient)” ethos and it’s no wonder that that people, both the kind and unkind, can ask some terribly corrosive questions.

When I was younger, I felt a responsibility to spread the word and be a patient, agreeable, non-threatening, cheerful ambassador.  When this did nothing than embolden the passive-aggressive, I stopped being apologetic, and started to enjoy my faith, stopping only to challenge side-lining, red-lining comments however made. (Unitarian Universalist rhetoric still distinguishes between good and bad Christians in a way that other religions aren’t.)

About ten or fifteen years ago, the zeitgeist turned from defense and apology to joy, communication and personal representation. My friends and I chuckled about rueful complaints — overheard at General Assembly and online — about “the Christians taking over” and “the Christians being everywhere.”

This change of self-conception means that  I won’t be told I’m welcome, but only if I act in a way others aren’t expected to keep. Or if I tone it down. Or if it means answering petty, barb-filled, conspiracy-seeking questions.

I won’t leave. I just won’t comply. And, my dear Unitarian Universalist Christian friends, you need not comply — or leave — either.

 

 

Posted on

All Souls Miami to reboot

Some good news, this morning! Happy Pentecost!

Per Kenneth Claus, their minister:

All Souls Miami votes unanimously to re boot…..some of the people who attended this AM…Wild Lime Center….UUA affiliation also unanimously reaffirmed

Posted on

What is it we become a member of?

Here’s another case one of those Facebook walled-garden discussions that really needs amplification and a public airing.

The subject is membership. The issue is on what basis can a congregation admit members? And in particular, by whose authority and volition. Is a person’s membership largely the will of the person who wishes to join? Or is it a status conferred by in an authority of the church: its governing board, say, or the congregation in meeting?

The answer you think is right says a lot about what you think the congregation itself is. In Unitarian Universalist circles today congregation has become synonymous with church, society, parish or fellowship. In historical practice, however, these were each different things.

A congregation is who met. The church is the company of believers, governed by spiritual leaders — the minister and the deacons — and it might shock you to know that many Universalist “churches” never organized one. The society is the parish without particular, reinforced geographic bounds, though that meaning is now especially obscure. Both served as a kind of moral, educational and religious (almost “religious but not spiritual”) public utility. Preference for the society/parish over the confessing church is the characteristic the Unitarians and Univeralists share. Indeed, share it so deeply that the distinction with church-as-company-of-believers is either blithely forgotten or hostily deprecated.

I contend it’s what gives us our curious something-for-everyone institutional chaplaincy feel. And it’s what makes some of our attempts to carve a unified spiritual community out of this nexus so awkward. We’ve believed the jargon, that we are a community of faith. That we have a “saving gospel.” (OK? What is it?)

No, we are more like a community of people with faith, than a community of faith. Not the same thing, and not a bad thing either. The history and particular friendships aside, it’s what makes it possible for me, a confessing Christian, to keep fellowship with other Unitarian Univeralists.

Posted on

Today is Ascension

Later. What? It’s Wednesday? Long week. Tomorrow is Ascension.

Long-time readers know that I love the feast of the Ascension, when Christ took leave from his followers and figuratively lifted up humanity. Leaving the office just now, I chatted with Office Mate, with whom the subject turned to how well parsed the Wikipedia entry for Jesus was. (Don’t ask.)

I exclamed: “Ah! it’s Ascension and it’s too late to take in a service'” then briefly explained Jesus’ final appearance and leave-taking.
Office Mate: “I thought that was Easter.”
Me: “No, that was his resurrection.”
OM: “So he pulled an Obi-Wan?”
Me: “Not how I would put it. Ascension’s more like the end of Jedi.”

Not that I like to give the Lucas universe that much credit. Plus it’s arguably a bit like the Transfiguration, too.

Happy Ascension.

Posted on

Today is Holy Cross Day

Today, September 14, is Holy Cross Day though some churches put it at other times. It marks the re-discovery of the True Cross by Helena, Constantine’s mother. It is a capital-B Big Deal in some churches. Its reach in Protestantism, however, has been limited. The observance is about the cross itself and (unlike Good Friday) not particularly the crucifixion.

I’m engaged for two reasons. First, it is churchly. The church’s searching and wandering is the motive and the cross is the reward. To my mind, it makes it more flexible to the churches’ need today, and is not simply historical. And second, what of this cross? Removed from Good Friday, we can focus on it and additional and imaginative meanings to be found therein. (Indeed, I do focus on it on Holy Saturday in the reading of the Dream of the Rood, but that’s my eccentricity.)

It’s worth at least one day a year to consider how something can be made for an evil purpose only be redeemed and exalted. Look, see and discover! An evil intent is not the end, but rather the grace of God which reverses fortunes and amazes the despairing.

And we could use more of that. Not simply for crosses, but human beings who have come to believe their selves or work are worthless.

Posted on

Ascension Day 2011

As I mentioned the other day when the elect weren’t raptured into the heavens, I prefer to mark our heavenward walk on Ascension Day, which is today.

It is rich and complex with meanings and associations. Just one: that Jesus being raised up — this time in glory towards heaven — both pulls him out of the particular setting of time and space, making him a universal savior and yet re-imagines and transforms his other raising-up; that is, his crucifixion.

A Collect for Ascension

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do believe that thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens; so we may also in heart and mind thither ascend, and with him continually dwell, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

The Free Church Book of Common Prayer (1929)

(I wrote about it more-than-in-passing in 2009,  2004, and 2003.)