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

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

With so many people talking about environmental concerns, and with all the efforts being made to come up with new paradigms and new solutions to existing problems, I have been wondering about how some of the ancient wisdom might inform the conversation. For example, Jesus made some extraordinary statements, many of which have been difficult to understand. One significant statement that we might explore is this: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Does anyone ever take this seriously?

Of all the qualities that our culture encourages us to develop, meekness is surely not among them. Perhaps we do ourselves a disservice by misunderstanding the word, however. In our language, meekness means having no power or authority. So, we conclude that the meek are simply swept away by the powerful objectives of others.

As is so often the case, our translation lets us down, or at least misleads us. What if the word in the Bible that we translate as “meek,” actually means something else? The idea of gentleness or humbleness moves us in the right direction, but even those words don’t go far enough. As I think of Jesus words in the context of his overall teaching and ministry, I come up with some deeper, and frankly, more powerful meanings.

Think of it this way: What if Biblical “meekness” is the opposite of exploitation. Then we can translate the saying something like this:

Blessed are those who do not relate to other people or to their environment in an exploitive way.

Or to put it in positive terms:

Blessed are those who use their inherent power and authority to relate lovingly and cooperatively with those (including the environment) around them.

Currently, we are learning the painful lesson that if we relate to the earth in an exploitive manner, we eventually make it uninhabitable for us. But if we relate cooperatively with the natural world, then it continues to nurture us and we thrive together. One might say, we “inherit the earth.”

Of course, the word “inherit” needs to be understood in context also. We usually think of inheritance as something passed on to us that becomes our property. We become the owners of the estate, for example. That meaning is similar to the exploitation discussed above. We might think that because we own something, we have the right to exploit it in any way we choose. Although it turns out that we effectively kill ourselves when we exploit our environment.

But, our inheritance is not about receiving “the deed to the earth.” Our inheritance gives us the opportunity to relate to the natural world in a way that maintains the health of the world and that, in turn, maintains our health, as well.

Perhaps this is a valid perspective from which to evaluate the proposed drilling for gas in our area. Is this a case of exploiting the natural world? If so, how could we relate to it in a more cooperative, dare I say “meek” way?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

Is Religious Practice Good for You?

I recently read a book called How God Changes Your Brain. Now before you start worrying that this is another of those dogmatic, but untested ideas about how necessary relationship with God is, let me assure you that this work comes from a highly reputable source, and while it has some startling conclusions, it is not a veiled attempt to manipulate or indoctrinate you into some kind of Christian Orthodoxy. This series of studies articulated in the book is a product of The Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania. It is co-authored by Andrew Newberg, MD, a physician who is the Director of the Center and Mark Robert Waldman, a therapist and lecturer who is an Associate Fellow of the Center.

According to their own research, and including their review of many other reputable studies, religious practice is not only good for the brain, but it is good for relationships and community, too. One interesting factor is that “God” or a particular image of God is not a necessary factor in creating the beneficial effects. For example, a broad range of meditation practices have been shown to be highly and rapidly beneficial to memory and general cognitive functioning. There is one qualification, though. If the focus of meditation does include an image of God, the nature of that image does matter. While the details of the particular image are inconsequential, whether the image is positive or negative matters a great deal. If a person meditates on the image of an angry, demanding, dangerous God, effects on the brain are negative. A positive, loving, forgiving image, however, results in very positive effects from meditative practice.

In short, the following eight practices enhance brain function (listed from least to most effective): Smiling, Intellectual Activity, Conscious Relaxation, Yawning (that’s right, Yawning!), Meditation, Aerobic Exercise, Dialogue with others, and (get this!) Faith.

This last practice is a bit surprising in the light of their assertion that the particular religious or theological formulation doesn’t matter. It comes to this. Being able to trust in your belief system is really good for you, even if you recognize that you can’t know for certain if it is true!

Does this mean, then, that beliefs shouldn’t be challenged? Should we all become conservative in our theological perspective? I don’t think so, and here is why.

A part of a healthy belief system is its ability to mature over time. So while we may not have to trust the ultimate accuracy of our belief systems, we must believe that those systems are the best we can have at the moment, and we trust (and this is the key) that growth and development is integral to our theology and to our faith/trust in it.

Getting back to the list for a moment, I encourage you to see how many of these activities are present in your life. I also ask you to consider if your religious community encourages these activities, or if for some reason, it ignores or even inhibits them.

Now, theoretically, all of these can be exercised without participation in a religious congregation. Still, speaking personally, I find that I need the support of like-minded others. No matter how useful or noble religious practices might be, I have a hard time staying engaged all by myself. Religious congregations don’t have to exist in order to promote these activities, but wouldn’t if be great if they did? What do you think?

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