Does Liberal Theology Destroy Christmas?

Atonement theology implies that Jesus’ life, crucifixion, and resurrection are necessary to make it possible for humans to be “saved” from eternal suffering. From that perspective, the meaning of Jesus’ birth is that “the cavalry has come to rescue us from doom.” (I’ve always found the play on words between “cavalry” and “Calvary” to be interesting, but misleading. The liberal church has quite a difficult time with this kind of atonement theology, but does discrediting it then mean that the birth of Jesus as the son of God has no value? No, that position would be tantamount to throwing the baby (so to speak) out with the bathwater.

Healthy Liberal Theology needs Christmas! We need to celebrate the coming of the light into a world of darkness. We need to express our great joy in song about the birth of the “Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Prince of Peace” whose coming was foretold by the Hebrew Prophets. We need to give and receive in the healing spirit of generosity. And frankly, we need to hear and be moved by the stories.

We all know (or at least suspect) that the stories of Jesus’ birth are the kinds of mythological accounts that surround the birth of all great heroes and messiahs – just like we all know (or at least suspect) that Santa Claus would face practically impossible barriers to visiting all homes in the world in a twenty-four hour period. Still, we love the Santa stories because we know that they are true. How many wise thinkers have reminded us that stories do not have to be historically (or practically) factual in order to be true? Even after we are pretty sure about the logistical problems facing Santa Claus, we still know the story to be fundamentally true.

And so it is with the theology of Christmas and its stories of miraculous conception, angelic visitations, long mystical journeys, and world-transforming events. A good story is just that – good. So, at this time, I remind myself and you to set aside all skepticism, all disclaimers about historical accuracy, and enjoy the season. Sing songs, give and receive gifts, embrace family and friends, and prepare your heart be moved.

“For Unto you a child is born…”

May your Christmas be joyful, safe, and may it transform your life.

Wayne Gustafson

Ps. I will be away next week. The Blog will return on January 7, 2009.
Happy New Year

The Rebirth of The Park (and other) Church(es)

In the inevitable gallop towards Christmas, while trying to slow down to appreciate the full value of a meditative Advent Season, I find myself thinking about the process of birth and rebirth. This coming Sunday I will be preaching about the story of Mary and her mystical/mythical/divine conception. It is clear from this Biblical story that Mary is much more than a mere vessel for divine procreation. She actually functions as a co-creator in bringing about the means for significant religious and cultural change. I submit that she does not stand alone in this role. The congregants at The Park Church, and for that matter, the congregants in any church also can function as co-creators in the potential rebirth of the church in American religion and culture.

I observe many (mostly main-line) congregations that are slowly fading away into oblivion while those people who remain in them continue to wonder how to bring in new families so they won’t go out of existence. It seems to me that too often they are trying to “survive” as the church they remember from the middle of the twentieth century rather than “co-creating” something that can not only serve twenty-first century needs, but that can thrive as part of the transformation of American religion and culture.

I am convinced that trying to restore the church of forty or fifty years ago is a losing effort. There are too few people who still embrace the practices of a generation or two ago. The present generation has its own unique challenges and needs and its constituency is not likely to revert to the practices of a previous age. It is my opinion that if it is not only to survive, but to thrive, a congregation must identify and claim its unique contribution to the spiritual health and well-being of present culture. And it must get involved.

So, what is it about The Park Church’s identity and unique qualities that that make it useful, at least, and potentially indispensable, at most, as a valued resource in the collective life of the present generation?

The beginning point in answering this question comes from the creation of The Park Church in December 1845. A group of members of one of the established Elmira churches wanted that body to pass a resolution taking a strong stand against the practice of slavery. When their petition was tabled, ten families withdrew membership and organized a new congregation that would be more active in challenging social justice issues. They believed that their Christian faith demanded public advocacy stances. Much of the success of The Park Church over its lifetime relates directly to its activism.

One consequence of social justice advocacy is that it creates broad tolerance of diverse groups. Actually, tolerance is too mild a word for what actually happens: diversity becomes something to be embraced, not just tolerated. We might call it “Love in Action”, and it soon results in a motivation towards love of one’s neighbor and even of one’s enemy.

Through its life of advocacy, The Park Church has developed a liberal theology. For me, a liberal theology always leans towards acceptance and love. I think The Park Church congregation embodies that active love in many ways. Its challenge right now is more about how to market its broadly liberal identity. Many people in the surrounding area don’t know that a Christian church can be like this. I think that if more people really understood what is being “co-created” here, many of them would want to be a part of it. They would want to participate in its educational life, its warm and supportive community, and its mission not only to be open, but to advocate for, and minister to, many who have been disenfranchised by our socio-economic structures and cultural prejudices.

To put it in theological terms, our identity as a Christian church is not based so much in what we believe “about” Jesus, but whether we answer the more practical call to be his followers. Believing is much easier than following any day, but following makes all the difference.

So, what do you think?

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 Holiday Displays in a Pluralistic Culture

It’s always interesting, and a little bit alarming, to hear how people talk about religion, particularly when there is some controversy brewing. You can learn a lot about a person, or a culture for that matter, by observing where they choose to have their battles. In other words, when we come across an issue that motivates us to fight, we do well to ask ourselves what we are promoting or defending.

Over the last week or so, a perfect example of such a controversy has been bubbling over in Olympia, Washington. As Thaddeus M. Baklinski writes in LifesiteNews.com,

A sign which reads, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" has been allowed to be placed beside a traditional Nativity scene and a 25 foot Christmas tree, now called a "holiday tree," inside the Washington state capitol building by state governor Christine Gregoire.

There are some people who see this Christmas display event as just another battle in America’s raging culture war. That bastion of fair and balanced reporting, Bill O’Reilly writes:

The importance [of the] the Christmas controversy is that it has become the centerpiece [of] the culture war between traditional Americans and secular progressives. Outside of the war on terror, this culture war is the most important thing happening in the country today. At stake, whether the USA will turn into a secular country that mirrors Western Europe, or maintain its emphasis on Judeo-Christian values.

O’Reilly identifies the warring sides as “traditional Americans” versus “secular progressives.” It appears to me that according to his use of the term, a traditional American is one who grew up believing that a particular (Christian) way of doing things was the right way and wants that way to continue without interruption or impediment. A traditional American certainly doesn’t want someone with a different set of experiences or beliefs to be able to change things. That particular brand of traditional American interprets any move towards multicultural acknowledgement as an attack on Christianity, or according to Bill O’Reilly, on “Judeo-Christian values.”

From my own unavoidably biased position, I think he and other “traditional Americans” would identify Judeo-Christian values as being: patriarchal dominance, superficial morality, and public piety, which means, by the way, brown-nosing God. (Just don’t get in the way of my ability to make lots of money.)

As I (and many other liberals and progressives) see it, these are not Judeo-Christian values. Judeo-Christian values are concern for the poor, hospitality to the stranger, love of neighbor and enemy alike, and a belief that abundance in life is for all, not just the few who are more righteous or more powerful than others.

A culture that is truly based in these values will want to make room for other expressions of faith right next to the “traditional” ones. A progressive, “secular” culture is not anti-religion or anti-faith. It simply “makes room in the Inn” for all.

Many commentators have noted that the problem with the atheistic sign placed next to the nativity scene and “holiday” tree in Olympia is not the existence of the sign itself. The problem is that it demonstrates the same narrow judgmental attitude as the “traditionalists” demonstrate. It is not an expression of one’s belief to state categorically that all the others are wrong. That sign demonstrates a kind of “atheistic fundamentalism.” And fundamentalism of any stripe only serves to maintain belligerent attitudes on both sides.

One other thought, the value of pluralism in public holiday displays is not about fairness – simply that everyone can have their say. The value of pluralism in public holiday displays is that everyone, then, has the opportunity to learn about one another’s perspectives, even those that might be radically different from ones own “traditional” perspective. Such mutual learning promotes relationship and community, and yes these are Judeo-Christian values.

What do you think?

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

Pro-life looks at War

I begin this installment with a bit of context. There has been massive divisiveness over the last several years over the meaning of “Pro-life.” Until just recently, the principle has been applied narrowly to the abortion question while largely ignoring other “life concerns.” I see it as a move in the right direction that many Evangelical groups are broadening their perspective to include reverence for life from cradle to grave. Those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum also need to do some work to broaden our perspectives as well. In particular, we need to be much clearer on the consequences of war.

Now, for sure, many on the left have waved the anti-war banner for some time. Still, even from that quarter, we too often hear qualifying statements about “just war” or “unavoidable military responses.” In my opinion, whether we are addressing foolish wars or defensible military actions, we should never forget the impact that war has on the surviving soldiers. Just today, the news media is carrying a story written by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Writer highlighting a new study on Army and Marine families. It appears that the divorce rate is climbing as a direct result from the stress of war-related separations and, of course, injuries and emotional consequences. And that’s one of the lesser consequences!

The truth is that no matter how politically defensible any military action might be, the long term consequences on the soldiers and their families will always be substantial. I truly wonder if this fact is considered at all adequately when heads of state make decisions to go to war. This scenario is similar to corporations that make production decisions without considering the “externalized costs” in the bottom line. Somebody always pays the price, and it seems to me to be grossly unethical either to externalize economic and environmental costs or to externalize the costs of war on families and communities.

Many (perhaps most) young men and women are motivated to go into military service for noble reasons. Nothing in this blog should be construed as a criticism of them. My concern is that when they sign up, there is some troublesome “small print” in the contract. It is not possible to make an informed consent when the significant information is inadequate or missing.

Most soldiers know that they could be killed in war. Our culture affirms a certain patriotic beauty in such a sacrifice. Most soldiers know that they might be wounded in battle. But, I am making the educated guess that they would expect to be able to recover from their wounds. It’s a lot harder to imagine having to endure a long life with a missing limb or eye. It’s almost impossible to imagine living a long life with a debilitating head injury or with sleep- and relationship-destroying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It’s even less possible to imagine the life-long impact of such injuries on their loved ones.

Theoretically, countries may face those situations where the use of military force is truly unavoidable. But, recognizing the massive human cost that always comes due from any war, the decision for military action had better be truly unavoidable. We have a moral and ethical obligation to our children and grandchildren “and to the seventh generation” to protect them from this long-lived living Hell.

In my humble liberal opinion, humanitarian aid and carefully reasoned diplomacy must be thoroughly exhausted before any more decisions are made for war.

I submit to you that this position is a necessary element of a “Pro-life” philosophy.

What do you think?

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