header

On Easter

Filed under: Con Spirito — Jess at 5:07 pm on Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Easter season brings out immense paradox for me. I have wonderful memories of the Easter Bunny and adorable baskets and egg hunts, and watching the flowers fight their way out of the soil into the sun and all the other beauty of life’s renewal in the Spring. But while I feel that Spring is utterly joyfully spiritual, I struggle deeply with religious images of Easter.

I’m not alone - lots of others are writing about how they wish their UU churches would either be more or less Christian on this particular holiday depending on their personal religious bent. Lots of ministers I’m acquainted with have grappled with writing their Easter sermons and stories for all ages, wondering how to deal with this very particular set of religious stories in sensitive, yet spiritually meaningful ways.

I struggle with these stories and images because I have been damaged by their violence. And I have not yet healed, even though that damage is now 20 years past.

The summer between sixth and seventh grade, I went to Lutheran Camp Perkins for a week with my friend Sara, for the second summer in a row. This was a pretty impressionable time for me - I was still settling in to living with my dad after most of my life with my mom, and I didn’t have a group of friends to relate to on any more than a superficial level. I was a pretty lonely kid. Neither set of parents ever talked about religion much at home, though I did go to church with my step-mother to sing in the choir and play hand bells.

Anyway, camp. It was a beautiful place, with lots to do outside and all kinds of fun overnight trips to go on. We had a sing-a-long every night, with the counselors playing guitar and singing “Jesus loves me” and “Kumbayah” and all those trappings. It was positive and fulfilling and I soaked it all in - these people were absolutely positive that God loved them and they were saved and going to spend eternity in Paradise. I felt loved and accepted and like I finally knew what I was supposed to believe.

The last night of camp, we got to stay up past the regular curfew, and we gathered in the common hall for a special presentation. We sat in a big circle on benches, bean bags, the floor, laps of counselors - one big happy family. And one of the counselors told us the story of the Crucifixion.

In all the gory details he could muster.

He told us exactly how much the cross weighed, and about how Jesus’ feet were torn and bloody walking on stones.

He told us that the whips his captors used had bits of metal and stone plaited into them, and ripped huge hunks of flesh out of his back.

He told us that the crown of thorns was more a crown of spikes, at least three or four inches long, and how deeply they cut into Jesus’ scalp.

He told us the words the crowd was shouting at him as he walked, torn and bloody, with this giant cross and the thorns, and he shouted in our faces to demonstrate.

He told us about the nails going through Jesus’ hands and feet, and showed us what must have been sharpened railroad spikes to illustrate the point.

He told us how long it took for Jesus to die, and how much pain he was in the whole time, and how much blood he lost at every stage.

And then he told us that this horrible suffering would be all for naught if we didn’t confess that it was for the sake of our sins. That it was our fault that this man had gone through so much pain and torture, that he did it all for us and we better be grateful.

I was sobbing within about five minutes of the story’s beginning.

Another counselor said to me, “It’s good that you can feel Jesus’ pain, that you’re open to God’s message.”

Those gory, violent images and the violence of their presentation have stuck with me for twenty years now. They are the stuff of my nightmares. And now there’s a cinematic version of them all, too!

And that feeling of deep, personal shame and guilt forced upon me that night is also an integral part of me that has never healed.

I don’t think that I grasp the entirety of human experience any less because I choose to turn away from the glorification of violence, torture, death, shame, and guilt. I don’t feel the need to experience these things, even vicariously, to know that they exist.

I understand that millions of other people feel very strongly about the power of the message in the Easter story. It is powerful, and affecting.

To me, though, the message of Jesus is best told in how he lived, and how others have lived in his example. The violence of his death, and the added accompanying message of shame and guilt have damaged enough people over the centuries, to my mind.

Which is a long way of saying that I’m more than happy to talk about sunshine and all the pretty flowers in church on Easter morning. And for my children to be excited by the giant egg-laying, basket-leaving Easter Bunny.

19 Singers in the Choir »

Comment by george_cullinan

April 18, 2006 @ 10:39 pm

This post has been removed by the author.

Comment by Ruth

April 19, 2006 @ 8:36 am

I just found your blog a few weeks ago and have really enjoyed reading it.

What a moving post - I often hear people in my church talk about having been “damaged” by Christianity, but it has been hard for me to know what they meant. Our interim minister gave a wonderful sermon on Easter in which he focused on Jesus as a gardener of Eden, and it really approached Easter in a way that I think you might appreciate. If you’re interested, I’ll send you a link once it’s on my congregation’s website.

Comment by Jess

April 19, 2006 @ 9:11 am

Hi Ruth, thanks. I would be interested in reading that.

The sermon I heard on Easter morning wasn’t too bad, either - it was various postings I’ve been reading around the blogosphere that got me going. ;-) I try not to be knee-jerk reactionary, because I do find much value in many Christian teachings.

Comment by fausto

April 19, 2006 @ 9:58 am

This post has been removed by the author.

Comment by fausto

April 19, 2006 @ 10:02 am

Well, you know, all that gore, horror and despair is the meaning of Good Friday, not Easter. Life’s a bitch, and then you die.

In contrast, the meaning of Easter, a meaning that it sounds like you instinctively understand but your Lutheran counselors failed badly in conveying to you, is that all that gore and horror counts for nothing. It has no power over us. The mistake your counselors made was to present it as possessing the fearful power that, according to the Easter message, it simply cannot have.

What is the message of Easter? It is the victory of life and hope and joy over all the pain, death and despair the world can deliver. You said it yourself in your own words: “out of the soil into the sun” … “beauty of life’s renewal” … “Spring is utterly joyfully spiritual” … “turn away from the glorification of violence, torture, death, shame, and guilt”. That’s Easter.

How tragic that earnest Christians were so unable to share this liberating apprehension with you, and instead caused you such grave emotional trauma. How joyful and triumphant that you are able to apprehend it anyway, instinctively, with or without them and their constraining words and legends and dogmas.

And how typical for Easter.

Comment by Jess

April 19, 2006 @ 11:31 am

I feel it is pretty much impossible to separate Easter from Good Friday. How does one have resurrection without death?

My problem is the glorification of that death - really, torture and murder - and the message of shame and guilt inherent in “he did it all to save us.” This is where mainstream American Christianity has taken this story, especially on Easter morning, and it’s not a message I find at all fulfilling or even healthy.

I find it all works better in Latin - particularly set to music by Bach. The message is there, but not the gore. It’s emminently more moving than the violence.

Comment by fausto

April 19, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

This post has been removed by the author.

Comment by fausto

April 19, 2006 @ 1:51 pm

My problem is the glorification of that death - really, torture and murder - and the message of shame and guilt inherent in “he did it all to save us.” This is where mainstream American Christianity has taken this story, especially on Easter morning, and it’s not a message I find at all fulfilling or even healthy.

Well, that’s the problem with the sacrificial model of atonement. You’re right that that is the dominant model in American Christianity, but it never was the only model in all of Christianity, and it’s not the model that Unitarian and other liberal Christians have traditionally embraced. Critics of the sacrificial model — speaking from within Christianity and down through the ages — agree with you that it seems to glorify cruelty and torture. The “Christus Victor” and “exemplary” models of atonement are fare less violent and cruel, and to liberals, more appealing.

Unitarians in particular have traditionally followed the exemplary model — the idea that Jesus reconciles our human separation from God not by his sacrifice, or even by his resurrection, but by his teaching and example of how to live a fully realized life as a human being. It becomes our task to respond to his example by what William Ellery Channing called “self-culture” and James Freeman Clarke called “salvation by character”.

The problem is, we Unitarians have by and large stopped teaching that, at least from within any sort of Christian framework, and in so doing, we have allowed followers of the Sacrificial Atonement model a free hand to define Christian belief in terms that are repugnant. To previous generations of Unitarians, it was not Christianity per se that was repugnant, but only the perverted image of God that the Sacrificial Atonement model implied.

Comment by george_cullinan

April 19, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

Okay, “comment deleted” at 10:39 last night was me. I can’t vouch for the others.

Comment by fausto

April 19, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

I deleted two of my own posts because they had typos and replaced them with corrected ones.

On my screen, you can still see the names associated with the deleted posts.

Comment by 真二

April 19, 2006 @ 11:28 pm

So supposedly the story of the multiplication of the loaves can be explained that Jesus’ selflessness in his small offering of five fish and loaves inspired a whole crowd of selfish hungry people to bring out what they had been hiding so that they could eat together. Nobody ever told me that as a kid. That’s incredible and it’s believeable.

That a man died and came back and that’s supposedly the greatest thing ever in history is a little bit tougher to swallow.

I hate the symbol of the cross. It’s so macabre. I’ve been sitting under it for 12 years in every classroom I’ve ever been in so far. I don’t remember a man’s great deeds and wisdom from seeing him dead on a cross.

Comment by Jess

April 19, 2006 @ 11:38 pm

Re deleted comments - I get ‘em all in email, so nothing is hidden from my all-knowing eyes!

Muuuuaaaaaaahhahahahahahahahahaha.

Just to lighten the mood a little. :)

Comment by Jennie

April 20, 2006 @ 3:12 am

That camp “counselor” should have been fired. maybe i can still track him down…he’s probably working for Pat Robertson planning assasinations and the like.

On a whole different track, Baigent, one of the authors who wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail is enlarging on his theory that the crucifixion was a sham, and that Christ was seen alive many times and many years later. I know this idea will draw scorn from traditional Christians, but how much scientific proof is there that the crucifixion did take place?

Comment by John (the Elder)

April 20, 2006 @ 6:31 am

(I thought I sent this already, but it obviously got lost.)

Pornography usually means twisted sexuality; but the emotional assault and battery inflicted on you demonstrates the accuracy of Webster’s third entry: “the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction (the pornography of violence)”.

It’s not for me, but an adult is free, by her own choice, to contemplate the harsh reality of Jesus’ crucifixion if she thinks it may help her better appreciate His immense love for her. Every child, however, has the right to be spared the gruesome details. Innocence will depart much too soon.

Had your muggers really read the gospels, paying particular attention to how Jesus treated people, they could hardly have failed to make His attitude and behavior the sole model for their own. How many times do the gospels show Jesus inflicting pain on or manipulating a child for any reason? Zero!

Report me to the Vatican if you must, but…Jesus didn’t die to save us from the fiction called “Original Sin.” If it really existed, how could He have given us the parable of the loving father (inappropriately called the parable of the prodigal son)? We’ve always been “saved.” It may or may not be true that Easter required Good Friday; but don’t waste time on the question. Focus on life (Easter.)

Consider yourself hugged. :-)

Comment by george_cullinan

April 20, 2006 @ 7:43 am

Well, I had the same embarassing typos, and I thought my observations would make a better blog post than a comment anyway.

So there.

Comment by Jess

April 20, 2006 @ 10:28 am

Mom - I think there is historical evidence of Jesus’ execution, but no one has found the bloody cross and matched the DNA. It could conceivably be a massive coverup, who knows.

I guess I don’t think it really matters at this point what actually happened, though it is rather fascinating. The gospel stories are the center of so much of Western culture that I don’t think it will make much difference what the literal truth might have been.

It’s the interpretation of those stories that I think really matters - there’s lots of good material there that has been used to evil purposes. It would be nice if that changed.

Comment by Obijuan

April 21, 2006 @ 1:00 am

We’ve always been “saved.”

Holy crap! My dad’s a Universalist!

Comment by John (the Elder)

April 21, 2006 @ 7:16 am

A Universalist? Perhaps. Could be worse — like a so-called “Christian” camp “counselor.”

More likely a Christian who’s parted company with the vengeful St. Anselm and started paying attention to the parables. If the early Church didn’t take them seriously, why did they allow them into the gospels?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Make an Entrance

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