jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) (10/03/90)
Rob Bernardo noted that I said >I certainly call myself a Christian as do the other members of the >Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. But we do not accept the >inerrancy of the Bible, nor for that matter of any book. And we believe >that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but so are you and I. and asks: Then what *do* you believe? Unfortunately his email: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US did not work. I am posting my reply to him which youUall might find interesting, if not I apologize. First, we are non-creedal. We encourage members of our congregations to read the Bible, do Biblical scholarship, read philosophy and theology, other religionsU texts, and great literature of all sorts. We affirm the worth of each human being and acknowledge the interconnectedness of creation. We promote the use of the democratic process in church government and in the world as a whole. Why do many of us like Jesus? UU Minister David Rankin says we respond to Jesus because: He was a protester: a man who called the leaders of the time a breed of vipers and told them their hearts were wicked. He was a heretic: who challenged the priests of the Temple and belittled the religious laws and customs. He was a third worlder: He ministered to the hated Samaritans and spoke kindly to unacceptable strangers. He was a man of the world: He ate and drank with notorious sinners and prostitutes. He was a radical: He took no thought for his own reputation and comfort, but followed the Law of Love. He was a hero: He stood bravely before the judges, without bending, without denying the charges against him. He was a martyr: He mounted the Cross, forgave his enemies, and gave himself to the mercy of God. These were the memories of the Jesus which remained long after the grief of the Crucifixion. They moved Peter to write "by your good works ... Glorify God." They moved James, the brother of Jesus, to write "Faith without works...is dead." In brief, that love is to be actual - love is to be incarnate - love is to be seen in our lives in the world. The perversion of the original Gospel began with the Apostle Paul, who transformed the human Jesus into the abstraction of a Greek divinity. It was extended by the Gospel of John to make Jesus not a model of life but an object of piety in the sky. It was sealed under the rule of the Roman emperors when it attained the status of an official religion. It is now possible to invoke his name to begin a football game. It is possible to be a Christian on Sunday and a bigot the rest of the week. We believe in the Jesus who spoke with authority, who demanded action, and who demanded that we love one another. Such a faith commands us to makes the world fit for living. It gives to history a higher meaning. It affirms the freedom of the human spirit. It demands the discipline of obedience and humility. It requires the attributes of love and deep compassion. It is a faith that exalts life and illuminates it purpose. As Kierkegarrd said, We never become a Christian - we are always becoming a Christian. We believe that Unitarian Universalism gives us a place where we can become Christians and share with those who are also searching for life and truth, but who do not wish to call themselves Christian but who share our basic beliefs of love, respect, and peace manifested through action in the world. John Allan Graves *Unitarian Universalism* jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu A church where you don't have to Duke Divinity School check your mind at the door! disavows anything I say! [Let me point out that our earliest source of information about Jesus is actually Paul. There is certainly a different flavor to the Synoptics, John, and Paul. But the Synoptics aren't any more a transcript of Jesus' sermons than John is. The idea that Paul took a simple gospel and introduced all the business about Jesus being Son of God seems to me unsupported by the evidence. If you want to believe that it's all a creation of the Early Church, I'm not going to stop you. But you'll need to "demythologize" all of the NT documents. You can't just blame it on Paul. --clh]
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (10/07/90)
jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >The perversion of the original Gospel began with the Apostle Paul, who >transformed the human Jesus into the abstraction of a Greek divinity. This illustrates precisely the point I made in a message a while ago. If you believe Jesus was just a good man then you are not a "Christian" since you are specifically rejecting the belief that Jesus was/is "The Christ". Perhaps you ought to call yourselves "Jesusians". Matthew Huntbach
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (10/07/90)
In article <Oct.3.03.35.30.1990.13453@athos.rutgers.edu>, jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: > I certainly call myself a Christian as do the other members of the > Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. But we do not accept the > inerrancy of the Bible, nor for that matter of any book. And we believe > that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but so are you and I. I do not understand this. In what sense am I "fully divine"? Either you are telling me that I am *radically* deceived about my own limitations and powers, or else you are using "fully divine" to mean not very much. Please don't get the impression that this paragraph is any kind of attack. The very kindest thing anyone can do to/for me is to *explain*, and I want to say "thank you very much" for your posting. But I really have very great difficulty understanding how anyone can say "you and I are fully divine" with a straight face. Surely you are using "fully divine" in a very different sense from me. So what do you mean by it? > First, we are non-creedal. We encourage members of our congregations to > read the Bible, do Biblical scholarship, read philosophy and theology, > other religious texts, and great literature of all sorts. Why, so may anyone, without *believing* any of it. The followers of Mary Baker Eddy could say as much. Some excellent NT scholarship has been done by Jews, who would be appalled at the thought of being called "Christians". I have read the BoM, I have a mild interest in Mormon scholarship, read philosophy and theology, but none of that makes me a Mormon. > Why do many of us like Jesus? [ possible list of reasons given ] *Liking* someone is surely a very inadequate basis for appropriating that person's name. I'm sure that the Mormons would be very unhappy with me if I claimed that I was just as much a Mormon as they are because I *liked* Joseph Smith. No matter how much I like and admire America, that doesn't make me an American! No matter how much I like and admire the prophet Ratana (I'm from NZ, remember) that doesn't make me one of his followers, that doesn't entitle me to appropriate the name of Ratana. Only by accepting the authority of the doctrines and covenants brought through Joseph Smith would I be entitled to appropriate the name "Mormon". Only by accepting the authority of the teaching brought through Ratana would I be entitled to appropriate the name of Ratana. Don't you admire the *courage* of Mohammed? I was amazed, on reading the Qu'ran, to find how much of it was sort of ok, how much of it I could assent to. But unless I accepted the authority of that message as the teaching and command of God for me, it would be hypocritical twaddle to call myself a Muslim. Again, please don't take this as criticism. It's a request for more explanation. Surely there must be *something* more to it beyond *some* Unitarians "liking" Jesus that makes it right for you to appropriate the name. If it is only "many" who like Jesus rather than "all", what is it that the rest do or believe or accept that makes it right for them to call themselves by the Name? > He was a heretic: who challenged the priests of the Temple and belittled > the religious laws and customs. "I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it." "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the smallest letter of the Law shall not." "You must do *better* than the Pharisees." and so on (from memory). This is _belittling_ the religious laws? > He was a radical: He took no thought for his own reputation and comfort, > but followed the Law of Love. What _is_ "the Law of Love"? How can I tell whether someone is following it or not, so that I know who to imitate? > The perversion of the original Gospel began with the Apostle Paul, who > transformed the human Jesus into the abstraction of a Greek divinity. I have more than a passing acquaintance with Greek divinities. My copies of Homer are rather battered, and Hesiod is getting that way. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see the resemblance. It's worth pointing out that many modern Biblical scholars accept only 7 of the 14 "Pauline" letters as genuinely being by Paul; for example 1 Thess is accepted but not 2 Thess. So if you're going to blame "Paul", you would do well to give half the blame to someone else. Given that Paul is thought to have written in the mid-50s, Mark in the late 60s, Matthew and Luke somewhere around the late 70s or early 80s, and John in the late 80s or early 90s, it's rather difficult to see Paul as a late perverter. Surely Unitarians do well to encourage their members to do Biblical scholarship! > It is now possible to invoke his name to begin a football game. That proves that people are violating the commandment "Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." But that's _all_ it proves. > It is possible to be a Christian on Sunday and a bigot the rest of the week. Well, it depends on what you mean by "bigot". I looked it up just now, and the dictionary I usually use says "Someone who is bigoted has very strong attitudes and opinions and believes that anyone who has a different opinion must be wrong." That doesn't _quite_ fit me; I have very strong attitudes and opinions, but I believe that if someone else has a different opinion _at_least_one_of_us_ must be wrong. But that is simple sanity. If I believe P and Fred Nurke believes not-P, then I cannot meaningfully say "Fred Nurke is right". I can say "Fred Nurke and I can't both be right, one of us must be wrong, but it's not important to worry about." But that's indifference, not tolerance. I can say "I am convinced that Fred Nurke is wrong, but for his sake as a fellow human being I will walk beside him in peace", and by me that's tolerance, but by the dictionary it's bigotry. To satisfy the dictionary, I'd have to say "Fred Nurke and I are both right; we disagree completely but I won't let him try to change my mind because I'm right and I won't to try explain to him because he's right", but by me that's insane. If you feel differently about this, I'm afraid you're wrong, but I love you like a brother anyway (:-). > We believe in the Jesus who spoke with authority, who demanded action, > and who demanded that we love one another. What do you mean by "authority" here? If you mean "Jesus is Lord" in the sense in which haShem is Lord, and in which no human being is Lord, then indeed you are Christians. But if Paul is to be rejected as a perverter, and if John is unworthy as having made Jesus "piety in the sky" (odd, I'd never noticed that before), how far down Marcion's road do you travel? How do you judge which of Jesus' alleged sayings are genuinely Dominical and authoritative, and which were added or perverted so that you can ignore them? With half the NT gone, what standard do we use to judge the rest? > As Kierkegarrd said, We never become a Christian - we are always > becoming a Christian. Soren Kierkegaard is one of my favourite authors. I came across his books at just the right time, when they were deeply relevant to my needs. Kierkegaard would have been appalled to find himself quoted in support of Unitarianism or Universalism. In describing the Danish church of his time he used such phrases as "the nauseating syrupy sweets in which falsehood's "witnesses to the truth" are wont to deal" and "putting a wax nose on God's face". It is hard to believe that such an admirer of Paul would have been kinder about Unitarianism. It is impossible to believe that the man who said "neither do I call myself yet a Christian" near the end of his life, because "I am unable to endure the thought" of "what it is to become a Christian" and who said "When all are Christians, Christianity eo ipso does not exist" and "when all are Christians, the New Testament eo ipso does not exist, yea it is impossible" could have meant anything approaching universalism. If I may quote: In "Christendom" we are all Christians--therefore the relationship of opposition [to the world] drops out. In this meaningless sense they have got all men made into Christians, and got everything Christian--and then (under the name of Christianity) we live a life of paganism. They have not ventured defiantly, openly, to revolt against Christianity; no, hypocritically and knavishly they have done away with it by falsifying the definition of what it is to be a Christian. It is of this that I say that it is (1) a criminal case, (2) that it is _playing_ Christianity, (3) taking God for a fool. ... > We believe that Unitarian Universalism gives us a place where > we can become Christians and share with those who are also searching > for life and truth, but who do not wish to call themselves Christian > but who share our basic beliefs of love, respect, and peace manifested > through action in the world. > John Allan Graves *Unitarian Universalism* > jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu A church where you don't have to > Duke Divinity School check your mind at the door! > disavows anything I say! It's partly as a consequence of this .signature that I want to quote some more of Kierkegaard. Quoting one of the most passionate enemies of one's position as if he were supporting it, how is that compatible with not checking your mind at the door? Perhaps our good Moderator may excise the following quotation; it can be found without difficulty in "Attack on 'Christendom'", but I think it is worth quoting in case anyone else is tempted to quote Kierkegaard out of context. {Note: from SK "a step further" is big time irony, and "witnesses to the truth" is really savage coming from him.} A eulogy upon the human race or a proof that the New Testament is no longer truth {The Instant #2, article 5, Soren Kierkegaard} In the New Testament the Saviour of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, represents the situation thus: The way that leadeth unto life is straitened, the gate narrow--few be they that find it! -- -- now, on the contrary, to speak only of Denmark, we are all Christians, the way is as broad as it possibly can be, the broadest in Denmark, since it is the way in which we are all walking, besides being in all respects as convenient, as comfortable, as possible; and the gate is as wide as it possibly can be, wider surely a gate cannot be than that through which we are all going en masse. Ergo the New Testament is no longer truth. All honour to the human race! But Thou, O Saviour of the world, Thou didst entertain too lowly a notion of the human race, failing to foresee the sublime heights to which, perfectible as it is, it can attain by an effort steadily pursued! To that degree therefore the New Testamant is no longer truth: the way the broadest, the gate the widest, and all of us Christians. Yea, I venture to go a step further--it inspires me with enthusiasm, for this you must remember is a eulogy on the human race--I venture to maintain that, on the average, the Jews who dwell among us are to a certain degree Christians, Christians like all the others--to that degree we are all Christians, in that degree is the New Testament no longer truth. And since it is in point here to look for whatever contributes to the glory of the human race, one ought, though taking care not to come out with anything untrue, to be careful also not to overlook anything which in this respect is demonstrative proof or even suggestive. I venture therefore to go a step further, without expressing, however, any definite opinion, seeing that in this respect I lack precise information, and hence submit to persons well informed, the specialists, the question whether among the domestic animals the nobler ones, the horse, the dog, the cow, there might not be visible some Christian token. That is not unlikely. Just think what it means to live in a Christian state, a Christian nation, where everything is Christian and we are all Christians, where, however a man twists and turns, he sees nothing but Christianity and Christendom, the truth and witnesses to the truth--it is not unlikely that this may have an influence upon the nobler domestic animals ... I am almost dizzy at the thought; but then, on the greatest possible scale--to the honour of the human race--will the New Testament be no longer truth. Thou Saviour of the world, Thou didst anxiously exclaim, "When I come again, shall I find faith on the earth?" and then didst bow They head in death; Thou surely didst not have the least idea that in such a measure Thine expectations would be surpassed, that the human race in such a pretty and touching way would make the New Testamant untruth and Thine importance almost doubtful. For can such good beings truthfully be said to need, or ever to have needed, a saviour? -*- -- Fear most of all to be in error. -- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.
jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) (10/18/90)
In article <Oct.6.23.08.03.1990.1647@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >>The perversion of the original Gospel began with the Apostle Paul, who >>transformed the human Jesus into the abstraction of a Greek divinity. > >This illustrates precisely the point I made in a message a >while ago. If you believe Jesus was just a good man then you >are not a "Christian" since you are specifically rejecting the >belief that Jesus was/is "The Christ". Perhaps you ought to >call yourselves "Jesusians". Well, actually I have thought about the possibility of calling myself a Jesuit, but since that term is in use already I rejected it. Jususians is very awkward. But in either case after some reflection I decided that if the use of the term Jesus instead of Christ was to imply worship of the man Jesus then I could not use such a term. I do not worship Jesus. I do not believe Jesus was infallible. I do not believe that Jesus was right about the coming end of the world. I certainly do not believe that everything written about Jesus in the Bible is truthful. I find the Gospel of Thomas more compelling than naratives which are trying to convince the reader of a particular point of view such as the fulfillment of prophesy. On the other hand, I do believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. If any prophet can be claimed by his followers to have been annointed as High Priest by God then Jesus Ben Joseph's followers have that right. His life and his message, though imperfect, were of such breadth and depth religiously that I as a unitarian universalist have no problem calling myself a Christian (a follower of the teachings of the Christ, the annointed High Priest of God). Christ does not mean divine, it means annointed. Redacters and translaters of the Bible have used the term Christ when referring to Jesus and annointed High Priest when referring to others as a means of separation which has no literal basis. If Jesus were alive now in the literal sense or in the human sense, I would very much like to meet him. Instead I have to settle for meeting him through the various accounts, including the Biblical Gospels and epistles (not Paul's) and the various non-canonical Gospels and writings such as those found at Nag Hammurabi including the possibly preSynoptic Gospel of Thomas. More importantly, because I believe that their are and have been many Christs, and that includes the Christs that Jesus describes (all those who are ill, or hungry), and the anointed of the old testament and the more modern religious leaders who preach a love of God, a personal relationship with God, and a translation of the love of God into a loving social action with such force and power that they renew mankind's relationship with God. I personally believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christ. Peace, Love, Respect for Everyone. John Allan Graves *Unitarian Universalism* jag@cellbio.duke.edu An inclusive church where you don't Duke Divinity School check your mind at the door! disavows anything I say! Peace, Love, Respect for Everyone.
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (10/22/90)
In article <Oct.18.03.22.31.1990.1302@athos.rutgers.edu> jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >But in either case after some reflection I decided that >if the use of the term Jesus instead of Christ was to imply worship of >the man Jesus then I could not use such a term. I do not worship Jesus. >I do not believe Jesus was infallible. I do not believe that Jesus was >right about the coming end of the world. I certainly do not believe that >everything written about Jesus in the Bible is truthful. Is this because of what Jesus said (Luke 21, I believe, or maybe Luke 17): "Surely this generation shall not pass away before all this [i.e., the end] takes place."? Well, "this generation" didn't mean the generation Jesus was living in. It meant the generation which sees all the end times signs he was talking about. Read the passage again and you'll see that Jesus said "When you see all this taking place. . ." before he said, "Surely this generation. . .", which leaves the uncertainty there about when He would return. He Himself would not say when, or which generation it was to be. John Warren "Into the narrow lanes, I can't stumble or stay put..." -- Dylan