In the Image of God – Musings on Diversity

When I’m leading worship, I often make reference to a particular statement of faith that we are all created in the image of God. (It could be argued that not just humanity, but all of creation expresses the image of God.) This notion comes from the creation story in the Book of Genesis. (1: 26-27)

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion (meaning: care and nurturance) over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Sometimes this passage is used to argue that God is really a human being, only infinitely bigger and stronger. Sometimes it is used to argue for a particular model of sexual relations. But both of those require a level of concrete thinking that while tempting, leads to a gross oversimplification. I think the idea is important enough to encourage our attempt to move beyond superficiality towards a fuller understanding. By the way, without the attempt to go deeper, the only other option for thinking people is to adopt an atheistic stance (and many people choose to go that way). I am convinced, however, that many self-described atheists are really people who have a deep spirituality, but do not have the words, concepts or symbols that are necessary to express deeply spiritual matters. Concrete language is simply inadequate.

It is my hope that “Healthy Liberal Christianity” can foster difficult conversations like this, and, furthermore, that hope is a primary motivation for the creation of this blog.

One of the “fundamentals” of the liberal perspective is that God’s created reality is more relational than absolute. God does not “stand over there” and create humans who are then placed into existence “over here.” In fact, from a liberal perspective, it is meaningless to see God standing anywhere. Our liberal affirmation is that, somehow in the creative process, the essence of God and the essence of the “stuff of creation” interpenetrate (or become one by some other, unknown process). We, then, cannot talk about God apart from God’s participation in that spiritual relationship that we believe is central to every bit of known, imagined, or unimagined reality in creation.

So, what can we say about this God in whose image we presume to be created? For myself, I begin with the “name” that God reveals to Moses from the burning bush. “YHWH” means something like “I am, I will be, and I am becoming who I am.” I take this to mean that somehow, the divine image is present in all “becoming”. When I think of myself as a separate person, I wonder how YHWH is in the process of developing in me. At any rate, I believe that my growth, development, thinking, feeling, relating, and experiencing is all part of God’s “becoming” process. And so is yours; and so is the growth, development, thinking, feeling, relating, and experiencing of every other person who has ever lived, or will ever live.

How, then, do I relate to those who I don’t know well enough (strangers), those who seem very different from me (aliens), and those who seem to be working at crossed purposes to me (enemies)? If I simply react with fear, scorn, or prejudgment, then nothing can be learned and no relationship can develop. In effect, such reactivity builds a wall between me and my opportunity to learn anything about these different (perhaps exotic) expressions of God.

Humanity is delightfully diverse, and every unique aspect of that diversity expresses God in some way. Human experience is delightfully diverse, and all that experience contains varying paths to God. Creation is not exclusive. It does not make some people more holy or worthy than others. Rather, creation is inclusive and it gives each of us a lifetime of opportunity to discover the diversity of the image of God.

So in your human relationships and other dealings, make good use of your curiosity. Welcome the stranger in your midst, and take the opportunity to learn and get to know one another. Be curious about the alien who comes from and expresses a different cultural story than yours. And pray for your enemies, not that God will “deal with them”, rather pray that you will increase your understanding of your enemy and that your enemy might increase in understanding of you.

Diversity is good. Diversity is enriching. Diversity expresses the image of God.

Wayne Gustafson

“No matter who you are, or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
The United Church___of Christ

Religious Voices in the Political World

While looking over the previous topics for this blog, I noticed that I have addressed the issue of religion in politics more than any other topic. And… tonight I’m starting a five session study group looking at Religion in Politics, making use of Jim Wallis’s book, God’s Politics. Either I have developed a personal obsession with this topic or it’s just that I’m fascinated by reading about how the political and religious worlds are rethinking their relationship.

Just this morning, there is a new report from the Pew Research Center regarding how conservatives are changing the way they see the participation of the church in politics.

Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters.

And furthermore:

There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

So what’s going on here? And does Healthy Liberal Christianity have anything to say about this issue?

We have to begin by remembering that religion and politics can interface in more than one way. Over the last 20 years, the influence of religion into politics has been primarily moralistic. A perception had grown within conservative Christianity that the liberals were using their freedom to change the social structure and undermine the church’s moral authority. Much of the energy for Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” grew out of the belief that the wider culture needed religious guidance or it would destroy itself. Apart from the manipulative use of this movement by the political far right, the motivation itself for many ordinary church-goers had a legitimate base. Sadly, the issues that came to define the Moral Majority” were restricted to opposition to abortion and homosexuality, and (incredibly) to their support for war. Even though these issues seem to be strange bedfellows, they make sense when we remember that they all are based in fear. And nothing has come clearer than the realization that fear works better than anything else if you want to manipulate your constituents.

Now, in my humble opinion, the fact that this particular use of the religious perspective was narrow-minded, judgmental, and mean-spirited does not mean that every voice raised in the political arena necessarily suffers from those same qualities. There is a vast difference between using religious passion to manipulate social behavior and using religious wisdom to enlighten and broaden political discourse.

I think political discourse desperately needs the perspectives that can come from a careful reading of religious traditions. Karen Armstrong has argued that some form of the “Golden Rule” is foundational for most of the world’s major religions. In the political and economic world today, “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been modified in the unhealthiest of ways. It now reads: “Do unto others before they have a chance to do it to you.” This could even be a functional definition of Bush’s Doctrine of preemptive strikes. Still, such a dog-eat-dog philosophy of life can only result in the destruction of us all. So we need thoughtful religious voices to shine the light back on what will help us create a community of health rather than a community of death.

It is important for us to remember that politics has always tried to keep religious wisdom out of its business (unless it could be manipulated selfishly). For a long time, religion had its “teeth pulled out” by restricting itself to heaven, the afterlife, and how souls were to be saved for eternal reward. Preachers could say anything they wanted to about heaven, but they were prohibited from addressing issues like poverty, hunger, and racism in any but the most patronizing ways. In other words, it was fine for religious people to feed the hungry, but they were not allowed to challenge the systems that supported the well being of the few at the expense of the masses.

My fear now is that many important religious voices will be silenced because some highly vocal religious groups have used their voices inappropriately. I think we need to be reminded that the care of the poor and disenfranchised has a long tradition in religious belief. I think we need to be reminded that we exist as a community with its own life and integrity and that we are not simply a collection of selfish units who compete with one another over limited resources. I think the religious voices must continue to lift up issues of fairness, respect, liberation, and relationship.

“Heaven” is in God’s hands, but life on this planet is in ours. We need voices to remind us of our sacred responsibility to care for one another and to care for the many resources we have available to us.

I guess this topic will come up again and again.

As always, I am interested in hearing what you think.

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minister, The Park Church

“No matter who you are or where you are in life’s journey,
you’re welcome here!”
The United Church___of Christ

The Merchants of the Earth Weep and Mourn

Greetings,

I must confess to you that I don’t venture into the Biblical Book of The Revelation very often. Its language is highly symbolic, and it has always bothered me how often the violent imagery found there has been used to build up the picture of a very angry and dangerous God, from whom we are protected by the presence of Jesus Christ. This image of God does not square with the many times Jesus tells people to stop worrying about God’s love for them. When he does make reference to divinely authored negative consequences, he is usually addressing the powerful religious leaders who heap scorn and blame onto ordinary people.

Still, whether or not God is just waiting to get revenge on us for our evil behavior, there are still consequences that emanate from human actions and systems. Jesus goes to great length to point to the “Realm of God” whose foundations rest on mutual caring for the well-being of all. From that perspective, The Revelation predicts the dire consequences of social, economic, and governmental systems that are based on greed and privilege.

In the 18^th Chapter of The Revelation, we get to look at the destruction of the great city of Babylon from the perspective of the merchants:

And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore, cargo of gold, silver, jewels and pearls, fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet, all kinds of scented wood, all articles of ivory, all articles of costly wood, bronze, iron, and marble, cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, choice flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, slaves—and human lives.

“The fruit for which your soul longed

has gone from you,

and all your dainties and your splendor

are lost to you,

never to be found again!”

The merchants of these wares, who gained wealth from her, will stand far off, in fear of her torment, weeping and mourning aloud,

“Alas, alas, the great city,

clothed in fine linen,

in purple and scarlet,

adorned with gold,

with jewels, and with pearls!

For in one hour all this wealth has been laid waste!”

I don’t want to oversimplify, but I have come to believe that whenever wealth becomes more important than relationship and community, then destruction always threatens. The destruction does not have to be spawned by God’s wrath in order to be a real danger. The fundamental danger of such economic systems is that they are primarily adversarial – they force people to fight with one another and to outbid one another, thereby jacking up the price paid to the merchants.

In these last few days, the world markets have been rocked by the failure of a couple of very large financial institutions. I am no economist, but it seems clear that the greedy push for ever greater profits, without regard for community’s fabric has been a fundamental cause of their demise. And when they fall, we all suffer. Those at the top of the pile seem to be the most insulated from the consequences, although, I’m sure there is weeping and mourning over how much “wealth has been laid waste.”

But there is a dirty little secret in our present economic system. And that is that we are all forced to play in it. When we have pension funds, mortgages on our homes, and the unceasing call for us to use credit for all the “fruits for which our souls have [been trained to] long”, when we are made so vulnerable by the very system that is supposed to help us, then we are all made to share the blame. “Well, you didn’t have to use your credit card!” “You didn’t have to get a mortgage that large!” “You didn’t have to invest your retirement money in the stock market!”

To a degree, our complicity in keeping the problem going is factual. But, what are the alternatives. If we don’t play that game, what other choice do we have? And does Healthy Liberal Christianity have any legitimate place in trying to find these answers?

Jesus saw clearly that the common people were largely victims of the systems that were established and enforced by the powerful. He did not blame the victims. Instead, he articulated a different systemic vision and called upon people to take it seriously and live by it. We can clearly see the dangers of our modern Babylon, so will we use our influence to create a system that is based more in relationship than in greed and fear? Or will we “stand far off, in fear of the torment, weeping and mourning aloud?”

What do you think?

Wayne

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma." Gracie Allen

The United Church___of Christ

A Memorial Sermon on the 9/11 Tragedy

Greetings,

In honor of this seventh anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, I want to share with you a sermon I preached at an ecumenical memorial service on September 11, 2002 in Newark Valley, NY. The issues seem as timely now as they did then.

“Christian Living in a Dangerous World”

We come here today for at least two distinct purposes. The first is to remember in prayer and worship the victims and families of the tragedy that struck our country one year ago today. Our second purpose is to consider how we can live as Christians today in our complex, dangerous, and hate-filled world. I have no illusions that my words can change very much, if anything at all. Nevertheless, it is necessary to speak them out.

I wish to share simple words of faith without being simplistic. I wish to offer real hope without being naive. I wish to stand with all who have been affected without taking the side of one group over against any other. I wish to speak as a Christian without diminishing, trivializing, or demonizing any other Faith.

We have a complex situation to consider as we gather for this memorial service today. First and foremost, we remember, with all the compassionate support we can muster, every person who died as a result of the acts of terror on September 11, 2001. We want every member of every surviving family to know that we stand with them and that we pray for their healing, their comfort, and for their awareness of God's compassionate presence in their lives. But it is not enough to hold only those particular people in our prayers. As much as it hurts and as much as it scares us, we are called to make room in our faith and in our hearts for victims and survivors of hatred and violence throughout our world: in Africa, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians alike, and those in troubled countries and cities throughout the world. We are even called to make room in our hearts and prayers for the perpetrators and their families, no matter how distasteful the thought.

Complicating our response even more is the reality that so many perpetrators of violence grew up as the victims of violence themselves, in families and cultures where violent response to conflict was the norm. By saying this, I, in no way, mean to justify the perpetuation of terror and violence by anyone, nor am I suggesting that, as a civilized world, we, as individuals or as governments, can avoid taking actions that are designed to limit the destructive power of terrorism. I just believe that we cannot ignore any significant perspective as we consider our Christian response or as we direct our leaders to act on our behalf.

Another complexity facing us today has to do with the process of recovery from trauma. No matter how much we want to be able to “make it all better”, there are no shortcuts to the process of recovery. We are able to pray for survivors who have lost so much, but we can remove neither the pain nor the emptiness resulting from their losses. It is not a compassionate response when we try to cheer people up whose lives have been so deeply damaged. It is not a compassionate response to try to convince people to feel differently than they feel. But, it is compassionate when we act on our knowledge that God has granted us a healing process containing its own, often mysterious, wisdom. We can trust that people who are immersed in anger and pain and devastating loss will not necessarily stay immersed in those temporary but consuming emotions. It just takes time – lots of time. What we can do is walk with them, helping to be a container for all the human emotional responses that legitimately follow any great loss. Being present to suffering in this way is not a helpless response. “Walking with” is very effective in promoting healing. Anyone who has experienced a great loss knows that a compassionate hug is more healing than words intended to “make it better”.

We must remember, too, that every human being has experienced profound losses through the tragedy of September 11th. Many among us continue to be haunted by flashback scenes of crashing planes, crumbling buildings, of death and destruction, knowing that life will never, and can never be like it was before. Every one of us, gathered here and throughout our country and the world, has lost some sense of safety, has lost some hope that the world has the possibility of being a better place. And, if we had not already lost it before, we have now lost whatever blissful and childlike naiveté we had so carefully saved up and guarded from a more youthful and less complicated past. We all need to be the recipients of compassionate responses. Sometimes a simple, supportive hug is the best we have to offer. Don't forget to give and receive plenty of them.

Perhaps the most confusing and complex issue facing us has to do with how we respond to evil. A significant part of our remembrance today is rooted in the loving, faithful, and courageously heroic behaviors that so many passengers on the hijacked planes demonstrated: from the whispered phone calls saying one last " I love you " to the hastily coordinated action of a group of passengers who intentionally sacrificed their own lives in order to bring their plane down, averting further disaster and loss of life. We also remember, with deep gratitude, those firefighters, rescue workers, and police who simply did their jobs, even though it meant giving up their own lives as they were saving so many others. We are moved and awed and humbled by their courage.

We, who survive and must carry on, are also called to loving, faithful, and courageous behavior. We are faced with the task of determining a faithful Christian response to monstrous acts like those that happened one year ago today. Complicating matters, we are called by our faith to act out of compassion and love in a world where revenge and the perpetuation of violence seem to constitute the response of first choice for so many individuals and governments.

We understand the temptation. At an emotional level, fear and pain almost always lead to the desire for revenge. We all experience feelings like these, given the right circumstances, and we are only too familiar with how many of the Psalms are filled with passionate expressions of such vengeful feelings. However, just because we all feel such feelings does not mean it is fine to act on them.

A foundational question that must be considered in making any faithful response is this: "Do I want those pain- and fear-based desires for revenge to determine how I will act?” I was the chaplain of a state prison for a number of years. In the community, I was often confronted by questions about the appropriate response to violent crime. People would ask me, "How would you feel if this murder or rape or other violent act happened to a member of your family?" I would answer that I would feel exactly the same way they do, wanting revenge, but that I wasn't sure I was willing to allow those particular feelings, by themselves, to determine how, ultimately, I would choose to respond. And, I might add, many people who are in prison would not be there if they could have found a different response and had not merely followed their vengeful feelings. By the way, many if not most of them felt completely justified in their understanding of the situation and in the level of violence of their response.

It takes faith, hope, and maturity to be honest about the fear, the pain, and the desire for revenge without automatically acting on them. The challenge facing humanity, in the presence of so much violence and counter-violence, is to find a way to fight through the emotions to another level of response. How we respond to violence (when our feelings are screaming at us to respond in kind), reveals the health and depth of our faith. Admittedly, these words are relatively easy for a preacher to say. But this particular preacher knows how very difficult it is to get to the place where responses to violence can communicate "compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance, and forgiveness" rather than simply getting revenge? As disciples of Jesus, we are called to return good for evil instead of simply perpetuating the violence, no matter how good, righteous, or understandable our cause. Sometimes the cross we are called to carry is a heavy one indeed.

It appears to me that not only is a simplistic, violent response inadequate to the presence of terrorism in our world, but that a simplistic, loving or non-violent response is also inadequate. This is not a situation that can be resolved by simplistic responses of any kind. No action, no matter how nobly or righteously motivated is without its own consequences. As much as we might desire it, we do not live in a world that we can divide neatly into its good parts and its evil parts. It is not possible to identify the good people vs. the bad people because human beings are so much more complex than that. But wouldn't be simpler if all the good people in the world could just have a "G" tattooed on their foreheads, and all of the evil people in the world could have a similarly tattooed "E". No such luck. The Gospel is quite clear that when we succumb to the temptation to make such judgments about one another, we always make the situation worse for all. Such blanket judgments too often result in demonizing, fearing, and hating entire religious or ethnic groups. Rather, we are enjoined to love our enemies (even those whom we just think are our enemies) and pray for those who persecute us, leaving the judgments about the “G’s” and the “E’s” to God.

The Yoke of Christ is easy in that we are not required to earn or deserve God's love, but the requirements of the Christian life, particularly in today’s complex and dangerous world, are anything but easy. Fortunately, we do not have to live out our Christian responses all by ourselves. Even the heroes that brought a Washington, DC - bound jet down in a Pennsylvania field acted together.

As you prayerfully remember all who have been affected by September 11, 2001, remember also that the Spirit of the Living Christ motivates us from within, and the embodiment of the Spirit that we participate in, and call “the community of faith”, supports us from without.

Remember today…and pray deeply, for victims, for survivors, for rescuers and even, perhaps especially, for enemies. And don't forget to pray for each other and for yourselves as well. Then, together, encouraged by the loving power of God, we will proclaim in words and deeds the Gospel of healing and reconciliation to a world sorely in need of large measures of compassion. Amen.

Wayne

“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not.”

The United Church___of Christ

Healthy Liberal Christianity looks at Religion in Political Discourse

Well, the big news these days is John McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. At this point it will be no surprise to you to hear that I get upset when any politician uses over-simplified moralistic stances to determine public policy. So, I’m pretty suspicious when a stance about abortion, to say nothing about gun ownership, seems to be the most significant qualification for a nominee for vice-president. I am not about to go into a diatribe about Governor Palin, but I want to consider when and how religious concerns can, and perhaps should, be included in governmental policy deliberations.

Let me begin by noting that the religious (social) conservatives seem to be thrilled with the selection of Gov. Palin. Why is that, do you think? It’s largely because she stands against abortion “in word and deed.” Why “pro-lifers” also tend to be “pro-gun” mystifies me, but her NRA membership seems to be the icing on the cake for religious conservatives.

I need to distinguish two different kinds of positions that religious discourse can take. One is essentially moralistic and individualistic and the other is ethical and community-based. I make this distinction for the sake of clarity, with the qualification that decisions made in real life are always more complex than the principles that affect those decisions.

Let’s look at the abortion question for a moment. According to my observations, the two sides in the debate about abortion have never been talking about the same thing. The main principle of the “Pro-life” group is that the sacredness of life makes any abortion automatically wrong. (By the way, I get very confused when the same people who are fanatically anti-abortion seem to be just as fanatical about the right to own a gun or go to war!!) They consistently try to paint the opposing side as favoring abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. For those on the “Pro-choice” side, the issue has never been about abortion, per se. The ethical issue has to do with how the decision is made – and that includes who has the power (and the responsibility) to make a decision about what to do with a troublesome pregnancy. In other words, is it appropriate expect a woman to be able to make a truly good decision (and are we willing to make supportive resources available to her), or must we take a more patronizing attitude and legislate what her decision must be?

Both sides of the abortion/choice argument are based in religious terms. One side says that abortion is always wrong. The other side says that when abortion is criminalized, it is only the non-rich who suffer. The rich seem always to find a way around inconvenient laws. Furthermore, the “Pro-choice” argument includes concerns for the health of the whole family and for the quality of life that a particular family can provide for growing children. From my biased perspective, it seems that the “Pro-life” position is deemed null and void after the child is born.

I must say, parenthetically, that the term “Pro-choice” is misleading. It seems to say, “I should be able to do whatever I want, and it should be nobody else’s business." This plays right into the belief of the religious conservatives that liberals don’t want any limits at all. They just want to do what they want to do. In reality, the difference in the two positions are more like “Pro-fetus-Life” versus“Pro-growing-and-developing-person-family-and-community-Life.”

For me it comes down to a choice between the imposition of a particular moralistic stance versus the broad development of a “just community." Or in other terms, “Don’t ever have an abortion” versus “We will work together to create a community of justice that both respects the abilities of men and women alike to make difficult moral/ethical decisions, and at the same time addresses issues of inequality of wealth, privilege, and resources, that in the long run will make the choice to abort a pregnancy much less necessary for anyone.”

With that last sentence, I realize once again, that it is always much more difficult to put ethical principles into simple language than it is to create moralistic “sound-bites.”

In his book, God’s Politics, Evangelical conservative and social progressive, Jim Wallis argues that the oldest and most frequent statement of the responsibility inherent in the religious life is “justice and how we take care of the poor and disenfranchised among us." It is completely unethical, if not cruel, to create a society that favors the rich, and then criticize the poor for not being moral enough! The Old Testament prophets railed against that position; Jesus railed against that position; and Healthy Liberal Christianity rails against it, too. The United Church of Christ has a long history of advocating for the needs of the poor and disenfranchised against unjust systems.

Religious perspectives will always be present in political discourse, whether they are specifically identified as such or not. So, I invite you always to ask the question, “Is a particular religious perspective primarily a moralistic demand for someone else to behave in a certain way, or is it an ethical principle that will affect the quality of life for all people in the broader community?”

Religious discourse that questions the basic fairness in a cultural/economic system will always be appropriate in the political realm and has the potential of creating a healthier community. Religious discourse that addresses a particular moralistic behavior without the context of the wider good does not belong in the political realm because it can only be divisive and it tends to support unjust systemic inequalities.

What do you think?

Wayne
“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church___of Christ