Thanksgiving without Violence

I grew up believing that Thanksgiving was a lovely holiday. It seemed to combine the best of family, food, football, and fall weather. As I grew older, I began to hear smatterings of stories from the Native American perspective and realized that there existed a shadowy underbelly of violence to Thanksgiving. As I have matured in understanding, I have come to know that everything real always has more than one side, so I am not surprised that Thanksgiving is no exception.

For a time, there was pressure to make Thanksgiving a time of confession and penitence in response to all the violence perpetrated on the indigenous population as white dominance swept across the country. While that approach was and is understandable, nothing healthy comes out of merely substituting guilt in the place of holiday gratitude.

I suggest that we can look carefully at our history and tradition in the service of creating a mature Thanksgiving celebration: one that does not perpetuate a culture of violence.

The history of Thanksgiving is thought to have begun at the Plymouth plantation in 1621. After landing at Plymouth at the beginning of winter, 1620, more than half of the Mayflower’s pilgrims died during the next few months. The bountiful harvest in the fall of 1621 gave the survivors good reason to be thankful because it assured them that they had a much better chance of making it alive through the next winter.

In their early years in Plymouth, the settlers were greatly helped by some of the natives, but within a generation, bloody war had broken out between them. Violence continued as a huge influx of immigrants displaced more and more indigenous peoples from their tribal lands. In time, the Thanksgiving celebration broadened beyond a grateful celebration of the harvest to include the (God given?) land, the growing opportunities found in a fledgling nation, and ultimately the values of freedom and democracy enshrined in America’s founding documents.

Now, I was born in the middle of the twentieth century into a culture that had long before been established. I didn’t kill “Indians”. Nor did I steal their land. Still, the land I know and love as my home is soaked by the blood of millions. These statements are not designed to generate guilt or to diminish how much I know I have to be thankful for. It is simply the truth, and I think avoiding or denying this truth perpetuates immaturity that results in spreading the spirit of violence. Gratitude should never simply be the product of violence, no matter how long ago it may have occurred. True gratitude must lead us to kindness, compassion, and to the creation of social structures that do not perpetuate the spirit of violence in our age. We must learn from our violent past if we are to create a non-violent future.

Finally, we must avoid the trap of implicating God in our violence. We should never thank God for giving us the land and bounty that is first taken from others. Sadly, too many religious traditions promote a God who effectively steals land from one group and gives it to a different group, purportedly in keeping with some inscrutable divine purpose. Such images of God perpetuate war and violence throughout countless generations.

If we’re going to be thankful for anything this year, let’s be thankful that we carry an image of God who is Love, and that we can use loving divine power to transform the world. We will never eliminate violence totally, but at least we can stop giving it divine authorization.

May the blessings you enjoy this Thanksgiving become the gifts you share in God’s Realm.

Wayne Gustafson

Is God Violent?

Recently, I attended the Eastern/Northeastern Regional meeting of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. For those of you who might not be not familiar with Pastoral Counseling, it is the integration of psychotherapeutic and spiritual/religious perspectives. Pastoral counselors typically have education in both areas and have done some considerable work to integrate them. While many pastoral counselors are ordained ministers, that is not a requirement.

When pastoral counselors gather, we try to further our development in this integrated approach. This year’s presenter was Dr. Matthias Beier, who has written about the problems of violent images in the way people view and characterize God. (http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0826415849)

While his presentation was on a different but related topic, I think his work in identifying and the ever-present, but harmful violent God images is important, particularly for those interested in Healthy Liberal Christianity.

Many religions have traditionally maintained control and discipline through the threat of punishment by God. The standard logic used to support this approach is that left to themselves, people are so perverse that without the threat of punishment, they would have no moral compass at all. It seems to me, though, that such an approach backfires. Rather than keeping people from hurting one another, the image of a punishing God instead gives justification for violence in the name of some “righteous cause.” Jesus’ words do not support this justification of violence without some severe twisting of their meaning.

Fortunately, some very positive resources are available to help in this effort. At The Park Church, in worship we often use material from “Worship in the Spirit of Jesus: Theology, Liturgy, and Songs without Violence” by Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and Bret Hesla. Also, while legitimate critique exists regarding some of the lyrical changes in “The New Century Hymnal” of the United Church of Christ, I commend the publishers for their efforts to remove violent imagery as much as possible.

We have a lot of work to do in this effort. God and violence have been linked in human minds for a very long time. Still, those who can peel away the violent layers can then discover the loving God that Jesus followed and portrayed in his teaching.

Because so many human conflicts, sadly including wars, are fueled by the perceived demands of a violent God, our long term survival may well depend on our ability to hold god images that are not violent.

I’m curious how you react to this idea.

Wayne Gustafson

Defining Adulthood

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the process of initiation. One of the life passages that initiations often accompany is the movement from adolescence into adulthood. In that blog (10-28) I wrote the following:

…one of the responsibilities of adulthood is a recognition that a community depends on a kind of mutuality of functioning: a recognition that “what we do to (or for) the community, we do to (or for) ourselves.”

Today I will consider some elements that might contribute to a definition of adulthood. Let me begin by noting that adulthood is not a state of being that a person can attain absolutely. Rather, it is an ongoing process of growth and development that is forever connected in present moments to people and circumstances. Adulthood includes specific rights and responsibilities, but even taken together these do not add up to a full understanding of adulthood. Religious practice has further confused the attempt at a definition because, too often religious practice demands a kind of childlike trust and obedience that does little to foster adult functioning. In fact, in some religious circles growing towards adulthood is treated as practically treasonous.

If we look from the perspective of brain development and functioning, we learn that the adolescent brain has not yet acquired enough capacity for impulse control. Some religious communities define adulthood simply by the ability to stifle impulsiveness. The favored motivation for impulse control in such communities seems to be the imposed fear of eternal punishment, and that alone. While I agree that the development of impulse control is important, it is only a preliminary step in the maturation process. The ability not to over-react to external stimuli is useful, as far as it goes, but the fear of punishment tends to restrict the capacity for mutuality in intimate relationship as well.

I am striving for an understanding of adulthood that includes the ability of the person to come into fullness. By this I mean developing the capacity to make choices, even when there is inadequate information about the eventual outcome of the choice. Adulthood includes the ability to remain grounded when others are being reactive. One example is the parent who remains firmly loving even when the child says “I hate you.”

Adulthood also includes the capacity to take appropriate risks, with the full knowledge that there can never be a guarantee of a specific successful outcome. Here is another way to say this: Life is an experiment, not a test. We can always learn something from whatever happens. Finally, one of the fundamental principles of family systems theory is that you’re not really an adult until you can go “home” and be with members of your family of origin while remaining firmly yourself.

So can we ever get “there” in an absolute sense? I doubt it. But such groundedness, non-anxiousness, self-awareness, and self-trust are important qualities to grow into over many years. I suppose I could conclude that being an adult means clearly recognizing the ways in which we are still growing and developing – and then being willing to take responsibility for who we are as individuals and how we choose to be present to the world around us.

In the spirit of what I have written, I know that this is not the final word on defining adulthood. I’m interested in how do you see it?

Wayne Gustafson

Whence an Ethical Foundation?

Among the many concerns I have about how the church can serve modern society, the problem of the lack of ethical foundations is one of the biggest. I try to listen carefully when ministers, politicians, talk-show hosts, and other public figures trot out their beliefs and opinions about life. Most often when there are arguments or other public conflicts, it seems evident to me that opposing sides do not acknowledge that the intellectual and emotional foundations for their thinking are very different. In fact, I get the impression that many people today don’t really know what particular principles support their positions.

For example, when people use the Bible as a supporting document, whether they believe that the Bible is “The Literal Words of God” or whether it documents “Human experience of the Divine Perspective” makes an enormous difference (to say nothing about the specific passages they might “cherry-pick” as Biblical evidence). The first position might be summed up in the bumper sticker that reads: “God said it; I believe it; That settles it!”

The second position doesn’t fit so well on a bumper sticker, but might be summarized as: Whenever people look deeply at social issues from the broadest possible perspective, care of the poor, hungry, and disenfranchised seems to be of primary value. As I think about it, maybe it would make a bumper sticker: “God is the practice of love!”

My real concern in this installment of the blog has to do with where and how human beings can discover and develop the ethical foundations for adult decision-making. I see a need for ethical foundations in the life of individuals, groups, and governments. So much of what we hear seems to be pushing a few specific agendas with little reference to the principles that might undergird them.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that everyone should agree with my principles, but at least we should be able to have a conversation at that level. Without clarity about our principles, we end up chasing the latest fad, expecting (or wishing for) it to make an enormous difference by the time of “the next quarterly report”. We need to examine our principles carefully. It is not enough to state that a particular idea is good or bad. We need also to figure out who benefits, who pays, and what the long term consequences of each position might be. If I use my credit card today, that benefits me in the short run. But what will it be like when I have to pay?

We also need to know who our authority figures are and what they require of us. Take God, for example. Two different people can point to a divine presence as the ruler and guide (or “lord,” if you prefer) for their lives. One person might say that the only legitimate objective is to be obedient to parent-like divine directives. Another says that what God wants most is for people to take adult responsibility for wrestling with the complex problems of the world. This is just one example among many.

I want to know how today’s young people (and the rest of us, too) are going to learn the skills to identify, articulate, and utilize deep ethical principles. It may turn out ultimately that the church won’t be up to the job, but I don’t know of any other existing organization or program that could do it better. Of course, my bias is that liberal/progressive congregations are the most qualified to help people develop a satisfactory ethical foundation for their lives. I would like to think that liberal/progressive congregations can embrace the mission of helping people grow into responsible (ethical) adulthood.

Sadly, the very place that could provide this vital service ends up being marginalized by frantically busy lives, youth sports leagues, and electronic gadgets. Be assured, I am not simply blaming social circumstances for the church’s marginalization. Liberal/progressive congregations have lots of work to do in their own ethical preparation and availability. It may be that our comfortable ways of doing things might have to change. It might be that we have to focus more clearly on our purpose and mission in the world so that our events and activities address the needs for ethical education better. Instead of insisting on our traditional forms to live out our functions, we might have to reverse course and allow our “forms to follow our functions.”

There are many good resources to support the development of ethical foundations, like religious scriptures, philosophical treatises, and research. To make use of them, however, we need to read, study, and learn ourselves. In short, we can’t pass on what we haven’t taken in.

None of this is easy! Liberal/progressive congregations can be just as uninformed or invested in the forms of the past (including practices and buildings) as any other religious organization. Still, the need for appropriate ethical training is essential. Will we embrace this mission and find creative ways to carry it out?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old; our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ

Initiation

One of the significant losses in evidence in modern culture is the loss of appropriate rites of passage and initiation rituals. Teens consider drinking alcohol, getting a driver’s license, and sometimes having sex to be among their major rites of passage. It seems to me that practices such as these are not really “rites” of passage, but are seen as “rights” of passage. “I’m old enough now so I have the right to engage in previously prohibited behaviors, (No matter how destructive they might turn out to be towards me or others.)”

While there might be some legitimate new behaviors that are appropriate to begin at certain ages, those do not constitute the central purpose or value of a true rite of passage. A true rite of passage has more to do with a kind of transformation that might involve taking on certain new responsibilities, for example. One kind of responsibility has to do with pledging to be a functional part of a community, albeit uniquely. Some people think of this as finding “your place,” but that concept has been used in such a controlling and prejudicial way in our culture that I want to say it differently. What I mean is that one of the responsibilities of adulthood is a recognition that a community depends on a kind of mutuality of functioning: a recognition that “what we do to (or for) the community, we do to (or for) ourselves.”

In its unhealthier manifestations, initiation gets confused with indoctrination. Indoctrination insists on the adoption of and allegiance to a particular world view. Indoctrination has been used enforce a kind of tunnel vision that maintains unbalanced and otherwise unfair social systems. Indoctrination tends to separate people from one another in a prejudicial way, while true initiation invites a broadening of perspective into a more comprehensive, and usually a more just world view. Indoctrination creates a power imbalance, while true initiation empowers individual and community alike.

One could argue that Jesus instituted a kind of initiation that he called the rebirth by the spirit. Its purpose was not to establish a new elite class, made up of people who held entrance tickets to heaven. The purpose of the rebirth by the spirit was a rebirth into responsible participation in a community that included “all God’s children.” Institutional religion is always tempted to forget this characteristic of inclusiveness and connectedness, and become exclusive instead.

Sometimes true initiations are designed to prepare people (both individuals and communities) to face new and often difficult challenges. If in fact we are confronted with potential social and environmental collapses related to the time of “Peak oil” production, climate change, and economic and social systemic fragility, then we need a new initiatory process.

Is it reasonable to assume that the church can participate in such a process? That depends. Will we really look beyond our immediate concerns for institutional survival? Will we cooperate with other organizations that have done such good work in articulating the current problems and challenges? Will we focus our concerns on the salvation of the personal soul (and the devil the hindmost), or will we initiate ourselves into the perspective that we are all in this together and that salvation vs. damnation is a community issue, not an individual one?

I propose that it is essential for us to create our rites of passage and our rites of initiation with deep care and vision.

What are your experiences with initiation (and its evil twin, indoctrination)?
And how would you imagine a healthy “rite of passage” into a challenging and largely unpredictable future?

Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has place a comma.” Gracie Allen
God is still speaking.

How Can We Generate More Light than Heat in Public Discourse?

It’s a well documented fact that political (and religious) groups today are highly polarized. Political perspectives tend to be categorized as “Progressive (the term that has largely replaced “Liberal”) or “Conservative.” As I read the news reports about public demonstrations, including those that have obvious religious foundations, I am struck by a disturbing quality that seems to be common to all sides. The shorthand version is “We’re right, and you’re wrong!” I also include its evil twin: “If you do not agree with me completely, then you are my enemy!”

To be honest, I can’t imagine how any relationship, common ground, or new learning can be possible in such a divisive environment. Some would argue that Jesus demands that everyone take sides. (Both progressives and conservatives use this argument in some form.) They use passages from Luke and Revelation to support that position. Unfortunately, it seems that both sayings are taken out of their appropriate context. One comes from the third chapter of Revelation:

‘And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: ‘I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

While this could mean that the “angel” (or “spirit”) of this church hasn’t taken a clear enough stand on particular social issues, it could also mean that the people have kept their religious beliefs separate from their behavior. It is always appropriate for us to consider the behavioral expressions of our beliefs. The next lines in Revelation essentially say that the people don’t make the connection between their lifestyles and their spiritual poverty. Their lukewarm quality comes from their lack of understanding that their lavish lifestyles create suffering for others. They don’t change because they “don’t get it!”

The second critical passage comes from Jesus in Luke 11: 23

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

This does not mean that everyone who does not agree completely with Jesus on every point is automatically the enemy. When his words are taken out of context, the problem worsens. So let’s put his statement back into context. Some powerful religious leaders are spreading the judgment that Jesus’ activity of casting out demons is motivated by Beelzebul (the devil). Jesus has made it clear in many ways that he is working in the direction of the Realm of God and that people are either working with him in that direction or they are not. Whenever individuals or groups fail to understand Jesus’ meaning and motivation perfectly (which is probably most, if not all of the time), agreeing with him becomes functionally impossible. I think we can get a lot farther if we try to learn from one another rather than arguing about who holds the correct position.

In modern public discourse, the issue at hand is usually a particular policy (abortion, poverty, health-care, or marriage laws, to name a few). I would argue that human issues like these are so complex, that a simple agreement or disagreement with the policy does not easily translate into working for or against the Realm of God.

I would suggest that Jesus teaches compassion (which is the opposite of judgment) more than anything. A good beginning point in public discourse is to recognize that there are many legitimate issues. When people listen respectfully and compassionately the various perspectives, all have the opportunity to understand the inevitable complexities more deeply. And, please note that the responsibilities do not fall only on the quality of listening. When articulating a particular perspective, we are most honest when we recognize the trouble spots as well as the strengths in our positions. No solution is ever perfect. Or, in other words, no solution comes without significant costs and consequences to someone.

If we simply vilify all opponents as well as all opposing positions, then we will have no opportunity to increase understanding, nor will we have opportunity to develop “human being to human being” relationships.

I think it never works to say to someone else, “This is what you should believe or support.” Rather let’s keep posing good questions for one another, questions like:

• I think it never works to say to someone else, “This is what you should believe or support.” Rather let’s keep posing good questions for one another, questions like:
• In what diverse ways does this policy affect different social and economic groups?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of any particular position?
• Are there other creative approaches that might not be included in either of the existing arguments?
• How do we balance the needs of a community with the needs of the individuals that make up that community?

These are just examples, but if they are asked and answered respectfully, then everyone has the opportunity to learn and grow.

I will close this installment by noting another statement that serves to frustrate everything I have suggested above.

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts!”

In my opinion there is way too much of that attitude in public discourse today. So, let’s spread real light, and let’s receive the legitimate light that comes even from the positions of our opponents.

Remember, Jesus also challenged us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. That love belongs in all of our important conversations that deal with complex issues. Love generates light.


Wayne Gustafson
Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking isn't.
The United Church__of Christ

How, Then, Shall We Live?

A few years ago I attended a conference where Wayne Muller was the primary resource for the weekend. He talked mostly about his book, How Then, Shall We Live?: Four Simple Questions That Reveal the Beauty and Meaning of Our Lives. His four questions were these: Who am I? What do I love? How shall I live, knowing I will die? What is my gift to the family of the earth?

I want to make use of the point of his third question, but modify the context a bit to include the kinds of changes that are already taking place in our culture. For example, on yesterday’s news came the report of a huge storm in Southern California. Now, maybe what I heard was simply hyperbole when the announcer said, “This is the largest storm ever to hit Southern California.” Furthermore, the storm comes on the heels of a number of wildfires, so the possibility of mudslides is greatly increased.

Our present challenges don’t come only from “natural” happenings; although when we include hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, and tsunamis, there seems to be a lot of disaster around. From a year and a half to a year ago, the world economic systems experienced unprecedented strains and threatened to collapse. The news is also full of reports on the swine flu pandemic with frightening estimates of how many of our children are highly susceptible to it and may die. Less dramatic, but no less disturbing is the variety of cultural changes that affect churches and other religious organizations. Not too many years ago, the time for religion and family was built in to the calendar, and to be an active church member was a natural part of being a good citizen. Oh well.

I know that you could easily add to the list of present challenges, so I won’t say any more about those. For the purpose of this installment, it’s simply enough to conclude that life is not “going back to normal” any time soon. While we are able to take note of some of the things that are already happening, we can’t predict what other kinds of experiences are waiting to happen to us. So, the question that surfaces when we look at our world is something like this: Knowing that we are facing extraordinary, disorienting, and unpredictable events (added to our awareness that eventually we will all die), the question becomes, How then shall we live?

This question is as applicable to groups and institutions as it is to individuals. What must we learn about how to be the church today? What will we have to leave behind in order to carry on? How can we make the Gospel message pertinent to the challenges of the day?

Much of the content of our New Testament was written in the years right around the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. They address the anxiety that inevitably accompanies severe social upheaval. Those writings also teach us how to be a community based in God’s love and they point to the inevitable collapse of the Roman Empire. One could argue that the same conditions that eroded the foundations of the Roman Empire might be present today.

This blog is not about predictions, other than to say that things will change (and they are already changing in dramatic fashion). If we have our eyes open, we already have plenty of evidence. But, (and this is a significant but) – knowing this, How, then, shall we live?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
"Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn't."
The United Church__of Christ