Humanist Jesus

The changing religious landscape in the US is a bit hard to get one’s head around. For the sake of clarity, let’s imagine ourselves in the midst of something I’ll call the Average Christian Church, ACC. On a Sunday morning. We find ourselves repeating the Apostles’ Creed—

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic and apostolic Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

Let’s say this is your first visit to an ACC and the first time you’ve run into this thing called Christianity. Do you believe in these things—Holy Spirit, holy catholic and apostolic Church . . . and on? No, you don’t, because you’ve never heard of these concepts. But you enjoy the service—the music makes your heart feel lighter, the sanctuary inspires a feeling of aspiration, the pastor’s words remind you of those aspirations and ideals you hold dear.

After the service, you attend an inquirer’s class. You learn about some of the concepts in that Apostles’ Creed. Let’s say you’ve always had a sense that there is “something” out there, a force for good and a source of love and compassion. But the details that the long theological tradition of ACC adds to that feeling of care that you call “god”—those details stretch credulity. You just can’t buy it.

What do you do? Do you continue to attend ACC and quietly avoid saying those words you don’t agree with? Do you look for another ACC that represents another long theological tradition? Do you search out an ACC that is creedless?

This dilemma, I suspect, happens more and more frequently in the United States, land of skepticism, land of consumerism, land of infinite choice. As the number of available warm bodies drops, it appears that many Average Christian Churches downplay their theologies and accentuate the positive—community; music; inspiration to lead a better life.

Just this week I ran across a Facebook meme that said, “Jesus didn’t die because of God’s anger but because of man’s.” Or something like that. Now, as someone who first heard about Original Sin and substitutionary atonement something on the order of fifty years ago, this statement comes as quite a surprise—that’s not the way the Wesley tradition taught it back in my day. Then, it was:

In Adam’s fall,

we sinned all.

And I learned that God was so ticked about it that He required a substitutionary sacrifice. What’s up with a change of theology this drastic?

Now, as a Unitarian Humanist, I certainly don’t have any business criticizing new ideas. Where’s the line, however? If I go to an ACC and say this:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic and apostolic Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

and then admit, that, well . . . as a matter of fact I don’t think there’s anything like a Holy Spirit; I don’t think a “catholic” church is a good idea; I don’t believe in saints or sins or resurrection or everlasting life of any sort . . .

Yes, where’s the line? What’s the essence of Christianity, the baby that can’t be thrown out with the two thousand years of theological accretion?

That’s up to the conscience of each of us. As for me, I won’t be joining any of those ACCs, no matter how fine the music program. I’ll stick with the Jesus before the christ business: A great Humanist who taught love and respect. A theologian who took a terrifying and vengeful warrior god and started calling him “daddy.”