Singing ‘Bout Jesus in the UU Context

May 8, 2008 on 10:56 am | In EX-Unitarian Universalists, Liturgy, Unitarian Universalism |

Suzanne wants to resurrect the thread of comments from this old post, and I say why not? I’m working on a paper and will start a ten-day intensive course tomorrow, so original material is unlike to issue forth from my fingertips until much later in May.

She writes,

Peacebang, I’m going to resurrect this thread, because it’s something I grapple with on a daily basis. I am a spiritually open and ritually eclectic person; I’ve ministered musically in Reformed synagogues, Episcopal churches (high and low), American Baptist, and (yes) Wiccan circles and pagan networks. I am now at my first UU position. How to choose hymns and anthems that support the sermon, provide liturgical flow, and have a spiritually meaningful component is shockingly difficult. Many of the best and most suitable music uses the word “God,” and (Oh NO!) often refers to Jesus. The word “God” is tolerated if I don’t overuse it. But if I use the J-word too often, I am severely and immediately criticized. Then if I don’t use the J-word often enough, I hear about that, too. The same group of people who wish for non-theistic language also want more classical or traditional music. WTH? Traditional church music without Jesus mentioned? I guess “Jesu Christe” is ok because if it’s in Latin it doesn’t count??? So I began to change a few words here and there to “UU-ify” the language of our anthems, which actually became ridiculous. (My husband said “why don’t we just say ‘Jello’ whenever the words say ‘Jesus?’ Everybody likes it, and there’s always room for it.”) Finally I had to write a newsletter column in which I told the congregation to trust me: I don’t have a religious agenda, but a spiritual one. I also told them I would trust them as well: I would trust them to use their own brains; I trust that all references to the Divine in the music I choose will be interpreted in any way they wish or need. I don’t care what images they have, or whether they believe in God. But they have chosen to call their institution a “church,” and that implies a spiritual component, which I believe can exist with or without a belief in God. I feel shackled by the bonds of the congregation’s contentiousness.

I marvel at how a denomination that is so proud of its inclusiveness should be so bitter and exclusive to the Christians (or even the theists) in its midst. Yet everybody wants that special Christmas Eve service, and to sing the old carols with the original words. I suppose Jesus, who advocated a radical form of inclusivity based on loving others, is not so radical or his teachings so alarming when he is kept eternally in the manger.

You can’t have it both ways, UUA-ers. You are either inclusive or not.

Suzanne, thanks for your testimonial on Unitarian Universalist Christophobia, which is still alive and well among us, even though from my own perspective we’ve come a long way in the past ten years. At least more UUs know that both Unitarianism and Universalism have exclusively Christian historical roots, and I experience much less Christian-bashing and ignorant comments than I used to. But that may be because people more know who I am; I’m not sure.

These days when people ask me “How can you be a UU a be a Christian?” I sense that they mean it with more openness and less hostile challenge than when the question came to me formerly. I receive anywhere from 20-50 e-mail inquiries and letters per year asking me how to be UU and Christian (or to remain Christian and join with the UUs), and I haven’t been angrily asked to leave Unitarian Universalism for at least a year (now that’s progress!).

In this blog and everywhere I go, I have been exhorting Unitarian Universalists to understand that “Christianity” is not a monolith, that we are too often willfully ignoring evidence of a huge liberal Christian world out there in favor of perpetuating myths of Unitarian Universalist uniqueness, and that this has got to stop if we want to live into our own claims of being accepting and intelligent people. I have been actively participating in ecumenical Christian life for many years and answering dozens of questions per year about why I am there (as in, “Why are you here, heathen?”). It gets tiring, this role of defending myself to hostile Christians who have been insulted for too long by Unitarian Universalists (or are just plain prejudiced), and defending my life in Christ to wounded or just plain hostile UUs who claim to be intellectuals but who know precious little of Christianity beyond what offended their spirits in 8th grade (the age they decided religion was all nonsense, and particularly the religion of Christianity).

To speak more directly to your point of being a UU Music Director, I do think it fair for the congregation to request minimal Jesus references if they’re not a Christian congregation. While I have every sympathy for your struggle, and while I cheer your ability to name hypocrisy when you see it, and while I totally dig your analysis that the baby Jesu in the manger is not nearly as threatening as the living Jesus who passionately challenges our spiritual inertia and social sins, I still think it makes some sense to ask, “If we’re not officially Christian, and if Christian Scripture isn’t part of the larger liturgy, why would we import Jesus only for the musical segments of the service?” That, for me, is about liturgical integrity as much as it is about theological distaste or mistrust.

All that said, I think your ministry with the congregation sounds like an excellent one, and that your newsletter column was a brave and wise invitation to individual discernment and more conversation among you. If anything, the congregation needs to know that there’s not a huge repertoire of purely secular (ie, “God-free”) music arranged for choral performance that would work well for Sunday morning worship. Your respectful invitation that they stop censoring you (your phrase, “I feel shackled by the bonds of the congregation’s contentiousness” pierces me to the heart) and your logical conclusion that “church” implies spirituality and yes, God-language, feels RIGHT ON to me. Hang in there, Music-Maker. Chances are you are doing much good in fighting for the right to include sacred music in this congregation. I don’t doubt that there are many in the pews who appreciate your struggle without even knowing that it is going on, and that you will do much good to the God/Christ-phobic by inviting them to move beyond fear and hostility into a place of comfort and more integrity around our much-vaunted commitment to inclusivity.

Blessings on your ministry, and on your congregation.

16 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. One rich vein of liturgical music that isn’t overtly Christian would be choral settings of Psalms. Much of this music sets only one verse or even half a verse as the text, and there’s no shortage of excellent music. None of it refers explicitly to Jesus Christ.

    Comment by Philocrites — May 8, 2008 #

  2. “I suppose Jesus, who advocated a radical form of inclusivity based on loving others, is not so radical or his teachings so alarming when he is kept eternally in the manger.”

    PREACH IT!! I am not a Christian, I was raised UU, and I *love* to talk about God and Jesus in church. Thanks for speaking your truth, many others agree!

    Comment by CFT — May 8, 2008 #

  3. After decades of struggling with this issue, I devised this little formula: “Who in this congregation holds The Veto, and what do they use it for?”

    “The Veto” is a vigilant commitment to suppressing every manifestion of some evil. The evil itself varies from congregation to congregation and year to year.

    There can be a single self-designated “decider” who contacts everyone in leadership every time the evil appears in worship or newsletter.

    There can be a standing committee — often RE or Social Justice — who believe their concerns are central to the definition of the religion. They tend not to veto everything that isn’t their bailiwick, but more than seems fair to adherents of, say, theological reflection or pastoral care. They often express their veto by shouting down people whose concerns don’t take their seriously enough.

    The recent emphasis on right relations in congregational life, and healthy balanced congregations, is at its best when it’s aimed at exposing and putting boundaries on The Vetoers.

    There is one thing I need to say about the Christophobia. UUism is derided as “the open door out of organized religion.” More favorably, we are often the “open heart back in for victims of religious abuse.” I have found entire congregations who have experienced Jesus, his name and story as excuses for abuses. The experiences lodge those names and stories as triggers for pain. Because I so greatly value our healing message, I consider it valuable to reiterate the inclusion message on every worship occasion.

    Comment by Elz — May 8, 2008 #

  4. “There is one thing I need to say about the Christophobia. UUism is derided as “the open door out of organized religion.” More favorably, we are often the “open heart back in for victims of religious abuse.””

    Exactly. Exactly.

    I can’t say “I am a Christian” and mean the same thing that most Christians mean when they say those words, so I guess I’m not a Christian any longer. However, I was at one time, a faithful, frightented fundamentalist. For years, I, too, was one of those very people who had the Bible pounded on their heads like a sledgehammer and the “evangel” presented as Eternal Fire Insurance. After expanding my spritual horizons, it took me a while to forgive Jesus. It took time to realize he hadn’t been the problem.

    I, too, have compassion for those in the congregation who have been abused in the name of religion–any religion. Because I’ve been there. But we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    One of the reasons I was so excited to work in a UU church was the chance to explore and experience truly inclusive worship. To my dismay, that’s not what’s happening. Nobody stays home from church when a sermon on the Buddha is advertised. But they do stay home on the rare occasions that Jesus’s life or teaching is the topic. If they came, they might find healing, because I have never heard Jesus talked about in quite the same enlightening way as I do from our ministers here, when they speak about him at all.

    Sometimes I think that “the Church” (whatever that means) is like the stone on Easter morning. Roll it out of the way! Get it off of Jesus and let him out from under it! Give him air, let him breathe.

    I was hoping a UU church might be a place where the edifice of Christianity might be rolled away, because Jesus has something loving to say, and we can’t hear him when he’s all covered up.

    Comment by Suzanne — May 8, 2008 #

  5. All great comments. I think what happens for UUs is that if they come from a Christian background they think they know all about Christianity and can therefore revile and reject it. They may stay away on “Jesus Sundays” because they’made up their mind and think they know how they’ll feel, never giving themselves the chance for healing. Ministers fail to make explicit that we EXPECT UUs who are maturing in their faith to heal. Buddhism is new and they haven’t made up their minds about it, so they’re more likely to come to that.

    Don’t get me started on those who treat the sermon blurb in the newsletter as a movie choice: “Oh, I don’t feel like seeing this one. It won’t interest me.” My favorite sermon title is “Come Anyway.”

    Comment by PeaceBang — May 8, 2008 #

  6. When I was dabbling fairly seriously with UUism back in the late 80s, I took it seriously enough to purchase a copy of “Challenge of a Liberal Faith” and to really try to understand what UU values were. And I really did embrace them. As much as I might have felt hurt myself by my background in fundamentalism, and as skittish as I was about Christianity, I never had a problem with a Christian theme being preached from the UU pulpit. At a church I was attending at the time, I found out that a lot of people were quite unhappy when a guest minister (they were between ministers at the time) was a little too Christian. I was stunned by this, since it contradicted everything I had come to believe that UUism was about. That was my introduction to the Christophobia in UUism, and it made me realize that a lot of people pay lip service to UU values without really embracing them.

    I guess even if you take a few classes before you sign the book and formally join a UU church, no one seems to ask you to take a test or anything. You can hear all about that vaunted tolerance but it can just go in one ear and out the other.

    Comment by Mystical Seeker — May 8, 2008 #

  7. Re: Peacebang’s comment:
    Are there any UU ministers out there who simply don’t announce their sermon topics in advance? If it’s not meant as an advertisement, why do it at all?

    Comment by h sofia — May 8, 2008 #

  8. I find that many UUs I encounter are hostile to the Christianity they learned as children. That’s understandable, but it’s a little like thinking that all mathematics is the multiplication table.

    Re UU Christians, the focus as far as I’ve found is often on scripture interpretation a la Borg. I am much more interested in a sacramental approach, rather than parsing scripture.

    Comment by Wonder and Wondering — May 8, 2008 #

  9. One of the reasons I came to UUism was that I was sick of the Christian-bashing in Pagan circles- esp. now since my partner is Christian, and looking for a more broad-minded community.

    I go to Lutheran services with my partner, so when & if Jesus makes an appearance that doesn’t bother me- in fact I welcome it, we can learn a lot from his teachings. It’s funny Unity is known as being a more “Christian” church, but I think by that they mean more theistic.
    If the church had an overwhelmingly Christian flavor too it, though that would turn me off, and I’d go elsewhere, but I could say the same if it had an overwhelmingly Humanist flavor.

    Comment by Mariah/Caelesti — May 8, 2008 #

  10. I have a name for the phenomenon that many in our congregations have had bad experiences in their former Christian denominations, and now have serious Christophobia: Post-Traumatic-Church-Disorder. Usually I mention it to lighten the atmosphere when people start ranting about those awful Christians.

    I love your statement that ministers should expect maturing UUs to heal. I am a mom, and whenever I hear UUs talking about how they were so badly hurt so long ago, I want to say, “If you pick it, it won’t heal!”

    I also consider myself Christian, and I feel sad that people have been hurt in the name of Jesus, but I also want to remind them that Christ’s true message was one of love, for one’s neighbor, for oneself, and for one’s enemies. Easier said than done, of course.

    Comment by Rachel — May 9, 2008 #

  11. I think the important point here is raised in the title of your entry, PB. It’s not a question of whether or not it’s OK to sing about Jesus, but does it fit within a UU context? Most of the “Jesus” music I know of presents a Christology which doesn’t exactly fit with our Unitarian or Universalist understanding of who Jesus was. So why would we sing of him in this way in our worship?

    As I understand him, Jesus’ ministry wasn’t about lifting up himself as something special or unique. Rather, we has concerned with being of service - materially and spiritually - to those around him. I’ve never heard of a UU congregation or individual UU Christian whose christology was remotely the same as that expressed in most of the classical masterworks or the hits contemporary Christian radio. Sure, there are exceptions, but it takes some theological nuance to recognize the difference.

    I’ve been saying for years that our musicians need more theological training so that they’re better prepared to make informed decisions about repertoire that fits our UU context. That way we can sing about God and Jesus in ways that reflect our shared understanding since doing so as part of a theologically balanced liturgical calendar is all but required if we’re going to claim the Sources we do. But it also means we have to sing music that lifts up the other traditions we claim. Surely the sermons being preached don’t always draw from one theological tradition, so why would the music do so?

    I take strong issue with the idea that “the best and most suitable music” is limited to that which refers to God and Jesus. This, to me, says that you either do not have a very broad knowledge of the available repertoire, or you have a tightly defined understanding of what is appropriate music for worship - an understanding that has served you well in other contexts but may not be such a good fit in a UU church.

    I strongly recommend a relationship with the UU Musicians Network as starting point for accessing broader repertoire. I had no idea what to do with my church music program when I started ten years ago, and UUMN helped me make amazing connections for both musical and programmatic/structural ideas. The body of non-theistic, non-western, deeply spiritual and theologically nuanced music widely available today means that our music programs and their leaders have no excuse for continuing to lament the “change the words or sing it in Latin, but always sing music of dead white european men” status quo that was prevalant for so long in our churches. The UUMN mentor program is specifically designed for folks who are fairly new to our movement, and helps them with this broadening of both repertoire knowledge and undertanding of what “fits” in a UU context.

    http://www.uumn.org

    Jason Shelton
    Associate Minister for Music
    First Unitarian Universalist Church
    Nashville, TN

    Comment by Jason — May 9, 2008 #

  12. To h sofia’s question about publishing topics:

    An historic urban legend tells us that William Ellery Channing stopped publishing titles and topics the moment he encountered a parishioner who said he wouldn’t be at church because he didn’t feel a need to hear the theme indicated by Channing’s sermon title that week. Channing reason was that the point is to be with the community and to find times to grow, not pick and choose just what one would like. I agree with him.

    If at all possible, I stay with just a title and do not write a blurb about the topic. A number of ministers avoid blurbs like the plauge. One of my favorite methods is when a congregation has a ministry team and publishes titles but not which minister will preach. I’m willing to put in the title because the congregations I serve are so small and have so many different worship leaders I want to offer as much structure and focus as I can.

    Comment by jinnis — May 10, 2008 #

  13. I think Michael Durall (noted church consultant) discourages publishing sermon topics. While my congregation seems to insist on it, I believe that it simply encourages an already ascendent shopper’s/consumerist mindset. You should be going to church because you believe in and want to be in church. Cherry-picking what sounds interesting seems like a poor path. For all of our UU bravado about wanting to be challenged and the intellectual rigor of our free faith, I see a lot of people who seem like they just want to hear the same safe things repeated, that support their existing worldview. Peace be with you. Gilster

    Comment by Gilster — May 10, 2008 #

  14. Wonder and Wondering says:

    “I find that many UUs I encounter are hostile to the Christianity they learned as children. That’s understandable, but it’s a little like thinking that all mathematics is the multiplication table.

    “Re UU Christians, the focus as far as I’ve found is often on scripture interpretation a la Borg. I am much more interested in a sacramental approach, rather than parsing scripture.”

    On the first point, I think that’s right. I like Rachel’s label of “post-traumatic church disorder”. I think part of the solution is to preach our own authentic Unitarian and Universalist theologies, which in some important respects were born out of healing responses to the same traumas in earlier generations, and I am perplexed why we do not do more of this.

    On the second point, that’s our authentic religious tradition peeking through. We were never a sacramental tradition. We arose out of Reformed Protestantism, which reduced the sacraments from seven to two (baptism and communion only), took a symbolic rather than liturgical view of those, and in the case of communion, limited its availablity and practiced it infrequently. Worship in our congregations has always been centered on the sermon, ever since the Pilgrims first set foot on whatever rock it was that they authentically set foot on. Sacramentalism is precisely what our religious ancestors were rejecting.

    Comment by fausto — May 12, 2008 #

  15. Maybe folks should read this lovely essay by Fr. John-Julian Swanson of the Order of Julian of Norwich on The Mystical Christ:

    http://www.orderofjulian.org/julian’s%20window/CE96DE91-1CF7-4DFC-8702-D5DB5B9F0A6E.html

    I love what he has to say there.

    Comment by Tracie the Red — May 12, 2008 #

  16. Maybe this tiny URL will work better than the big fat one!

    http://tiny.cc/XuW4b

    Hope it works. It’s well worth reading.

    Comment by Tracie the Red — May 12, 2008 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^