It’s Time for a Change.

I have been writing this blog since April 16, 2008 and this is the 86th installment. For a while, readership was pretty consistent, but in recent months it has shown a steady decline. I think it’s time for me to take a break.

The purpose of the blog has been to articulate many religious, social, theological, and political issues from the perspective of Healthy Liberal Christianity. I feel that continuing to blog at this point will just result in my rehashing positions that I have made several times before. I will leave the blog up for a while longer for anyone who wants to look back over previous posts.

It has been a good exercise to take an intentional look at the world each week from the perspective of Healthy Liberal Christianity. The exercise has helped me think through many matters. Of course, I had hoped to generate more conversation than has developed, but that’s just the way it is.

Let me tell you about my next project, and invite you to come along and pass the word as appropriate. You will understand why I am making this request in a moment.

I have been the Interim Minister at the Park Church in Elmira, New York for about two years and I will complete my time here in June 2010. The Pastoral Search Committee is working diligently, so it is possible that the new minister might resume blogging on this site at some future time. You will hear about it if that happens.

Meanwhile, I want you to know what I will be doing next and I wish to invite your interest. Over the last few years I have written and refined a novel about Moses called Community of Promise that I will be publishing early in the New Year. I am looking for pre-publication orders (at a discount, of course), so let me tell you a bit about it.

In the Biblical account, Moses is prohibited from entering the Promised Land and he dies on Mt. Nebo. There is an ancient legend that Moses did not die a natural death, but was taken up directly into the presence of God. In my novel, Moses is not prohibited from the Promised Land by God, but he decides that all of the valuable learning from their collective experience in the Wilderness is about to be lost as soon as the people set about killing the present Canaanites and begin establishing their own government in the Promised Land. Moses decides that he will not to go across the Jordan River with the main body of the Israelites, but with a small group of like-minded people who help him fake his death, he and they return surreptitiously in the direction of the Wilderness where they plan to establish a very different manifestation of the Promised Land. The story raises many social, religious, theological, political, psychological, and economic issues.

I am in the process of setting up a website and another blog to market the book. A couple of church-based book study groups have already used the novel and their feedback has contributed to a study guide that will be included at the end. Perhaps an on-line book study group will be possible in the future.

More information on Community of Promise can be found at www.entospress.com.
Community of Promise will be published in paperback, complete with a study guide and will sell for $21.95. The cost per copy for any pre-production orders will be $15.

After June 2010 when I have completed my work at The Park Church, I will continue my Pastoral Counseling Practice in Watkins Glen and Ithaca and will be marketing the book to gatherings of religious groups.

Thanks for journeying with me so far and thanks to The Park Church for their support of this blog.

May your journeys be as rich in blessings as Moses’ was.

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

What if you outgrow church?

It is evident that the moment a gathering of believers becomes an institution, the impulse to hold on to the institution’s members increases. In truth, its very survival depends on maintaining and even growing its membership roles. When its survival is threatened in any way, an institution can react in extreme ways that are not necessarily in keeping with its stated identity or purpose. These reactions can become quite nasty. Consider a person who presumes to outgrow the institution. It is not unusual for the institution to treat such a person as a traitor or an infidel. The institutional response to such apparently treasonous behavior can, and often does include heaping on shame and using the threat of eternal punishment to get the person back into the confines of acceptable behavior or belief.

To be clear, I am not referring to any particular religious institution. All are subject to some form of this institutional reactivity. One example is the institution called family. Some families behave as if loyalty and obedience to the leadership of the family is the highest, perhaps the only, acceptable value. But, doesn’t that position obscure what might be the more central purpose of a family: that of nurturing children into becoming fully functional adults?

I see any healthy system, including church, as resisting the temptation to put its institutional survival ahead of the wellbeing of the people in it or ahead of the wellbeing of the community it serves. To use the imagery of Jesus, what does it profit us to gain institutional survival at the expense of individual and corporate spiritual growth?
I would like to believe that the church is most successful, not when it has full pews and well-lined coffers, but when it helps people make the transition from childhood, through adolescence, and then into adulthood.

I would like the church to affirm the requirements of the individual for appropriate nourishment, even if the particular institution cannot meet that particular need. I would like the church to be proud of its “graduates”: those who follow a path of mature integrity like Jesus did.

Buildings, congregational relationships, and governance structures have their value, but we must be ever vigilant that they not substitute obedience and loyalty in the rightful place of healthy development.

A particularly dangerous situation emerges when religious institutions believe that they have the correct set of beliefs and/or practices, and that “God” will be unhappy with anything else. One of the hallmarks of healthy liberal religion is when it recognizes the limitations of its understanding, and similarly, the limitations of any word, image, ritual, or tradition to encompass the fullness of divine presence and meaning. All of these have their value, but only as ways to point us toward ultimate reality. The limitations of finitude will always keep us well short of complete understanding, but those same limitations can motivate a lifetime of growth and learning.

I see two possible benefits, one for the individual and one for the institution. A healthy institution will always help individuals to develop more fully, and at the same time the institution has the opportunity develop more fully as well. Maybe the Realm of God works something like this.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

Perspectives on Advent and Christmas

Yesterday, I made a phone call. I was trying to obtain a new battery for my laptop computer. It was bad enough that “they” kept me on hold for 20 minutes, and then announced that “all our agents are busy, please call again.” But the worst part was the truly awful music that played in my ear over and over again for the entire time. Apparently what I was hearing came from their latest Christmas television commercials: badly sung Christmas carol tunes with lyrics touting the joys of receiving big-ticket electronic appliances. Aaarrghhh!!!!

Of course, the commercialization of Christmas is nothing new. We all have been indoctrinated into believing that for many companies, their very survival year after year is largely dependent on holiday sales, and for the rest, it’s about company profits, executive compensation, and stock share price. It’s almost un-American to be any less than an avid consumer of things we barely want, bought from people we don’t know, using money we don’t have. (I don’t remember who first said this line, but I like it!)

What really struck me in this experience was how assaulted I felt. If they think I will be motivated to go right out and buy their products after hearing that, they have another think coming. Or do they? Perhaps I am the exception. Can it be that simply getting our attention, no matter how obnoxious the means, does tap something vulnerable and needy in the depths of our collective psyche?

Making people feel bad so they will “buy” a particular product is nothing new. Religions and governments have been doing it for millennia. The essence of any marketing campaign is the objective of getting the potential buyer to “need” the product. Conventional wisdom says that people who feel spiritually healthy don’t need the “products of salvation” peddled by the church; people who feel safe, secure, and free don’t need the ministrations of government touted by politicians; and people who have “enough” for a meaningful life, however simple, do not need all the stuff of the holiday buying season. Sadly, marketing campaigns in business, politics and religion don’t have a corner on the market, so to speak). We do it in our individual relationships, too. Be honest now. How many times have you said to a friend or family member “What you need is …!” or “All you need is …!”

A rich man came to Jesus wanting to know what he needed to do to enter the Realm of God. Jesus affirmed everything that he was already doing, but then noted one more thing that was standing in his way. Please notice that Jesus was responding honestly to the man’s honest question. “Go, sell all you have and give the proceeds to the poor.” And the man went away troubled.

For me, the point of the story is that Jesus was not selling anything. Clearly, he did not need to exploit the man’s sincere question for his own gain. Now, we don’t know if the man ever attempted to walk the path that Jesus had pointed out to him. All we know is that Jesus didn’t chase after him in an effort to “close the sale.”

The marketing world chases us in all sorts of ways. It has done a thorough job of making us feel guilty if we don’t give enough, or deprived if we don’t get enough. The challenge before Healthy Liberal Christianity is to identify a different kind of foundation for giving and receiving – a foundation more in keeping with freely shared love and grace.

Meanwhile, there are many alternative approaches to giving during the holidays. I won’t try to list them, but here are a couple of web addresses for you to explore if you wish. (I don’t “need” you to do this.)
http://www.buynothingchristmas.org/alternatives/index.html
http://globalministries.org/get-involved/special-giving-opportunities/alternative-christmas.html

Some churches even offer alternative Christmas fairs for their surrounding communities.

Healthy Liberal Christianity thinks of Jesus’ life as a gift, not an imposition. How does this perspective work for you?

Wayne Gustafson

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

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

The Church in Interesting Times

Perhaps you know the ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in an interesting time.” It was a curse because the conservative temperament of the culture of that era demanded consistency, predictability, and regularity in all of life’s affairs. The more modern phrase – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – would have adequately expressed the general sentiment.

Sometimes social progressives think of change in terms of necessary growth and development, but they run into resistance from those who hold the above sentiment. The challenges of 2009 have the capacity to drive conservatives and progressives alike stark raving mad. It seems that everything around us is broken. A political system that used to function by means of dialogue and compromise has become a dysfunctional mess of partisan posturing. A business community that used to see itself as providing valuable contributions to the well being of all has deteriorated into a fight for short-term profits that ultimately have little to do with the services and goods that are provided and received. The social and cultural environment that used to build in space for the well-being of families, and even had room for Sabbath, has changed into a set of overwhelming demands for time and resources that suck the energy and spirit out of everyone. The church that used to stand apart as a sanctuary and as a healing community for people, now must compete with sports teams, entertainment offerings, video games, i-phones, the internet for the small remnant of time and resource that the demands of working for a living leave unscheduled.

We can’t go back to how it used to be – at least not right away. But, we also can’t ignore the ever-present drain on time, energy, resources, and spirit either. I have said many times that if the church tries to compete in the worlds of entertainment, sports, or even service organization, sooner or later it will lose. While it may touch many other areas, the church does not exist fundamentally for entertainment, competition, or even public service.

If the church cannot be defined in those terms, what, then, is it? When I was growing up, the church was simply the place you were a part of on Sunday mornings. It had something to do with heaven, and something to do with the spiritual truth about life. It had very little competition from other social activities (although, I will confess to having gone skiing instead on some Sundays). The church didn’t have to work very hard to define itself, because those were less complicated times. Its identity and its connection were generally understood by most people that I had any contact with.

In our “interesting” times, this is no longer the case. I think we have to work very hard to articulate who and what the church is today. We certainly need to know what the community needs from us, but, more than that, we need to know who we are. What is characteristic of who we are as the church?

Here are some of the characteristic attempts to describe the church’s identity:

1. The church knows God’s will and has to convince people to follow it – or else!
2. The church is the (only?) way to salvation – whatever that means.
3. The church is the soul of the community – and without it, the community may have no soul.
4. The church is a collection of sinners who know that God’s love is bigger than their individual or collective “badness.”
5. The church is a collection of the lost, who at least know that they are lost.
6. The church is a meeting place for people who know God’s love and those who seek it.
7. The church is where you can ask all the questions that are not allowed in other places.
8. The church is a sanctuary from the problems of the world.
9. The church is a spiritual filling station.
10. The church is the “body of Christ.”

I’m sure there are many others.
All I know is that many churches are trying to live and be in an interesting time.

How would you articulate the identity of the church today?

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

When a Virus Comes to Church

While I was driving to the church this morning, NPR news was reporting that many religious congregations are rethinking their worship practices in the light of the increasingly prevalent and dangerous viruses that get passed around during flu season every year. Holy Water, shaking hands, hugging, Holy Communion taken from a common cup, and kissing the Torah are all obvious ways that viruses can be passed around. These practices, however, have been deeply rooted in meaningful worship experiences for a very long time. It’s hard to let go of them.

In the last church I served as Interim Minister, the worship bulletin routinely carried this statement:

We value the opportunity to share the peace of Christ with one another in our Sunday morning worship experience. So that we might preserve its positive quality for all, we ask that you be sensitive to the needs of your fellow worshippers with regard to how the peace is passed. In some churches the peace is passed with a hug. While hugging can certainly happen here, we invite persons always to ask permission first. People differ in their desires for and comfort with physical contact, so we try to be respectful of those differences.
During cold and flu seasons, some persons might request that there be no contact at all, including handshakes, to protect against the spread of disease. Please don’t take it personally. Of course, at any time you are invited to communicate your welcome of one another and to share the peace of Christ with your warm words.

While the hygienic benefits of a policy like this are obvious, we cannot simply adopt them without acknowledging deeper significant issues. Christianity has always been ambivalent about human bodies and human touch. Some passages in the New Testament (usually taken out of context) suggest that matters of the spirit (or mind) are “godly”, while matters of the flesh (that means human bodies and emotions) are intrinsically evil. Sexuality typically is seen to be suspect and most human desires surely lead to trouble. On the surface of human experience these ideas carry a lot of truth. For example, it is true that sexual contact can be used as a way to avoid intimacy. But just because sexuality can be used inappropriately, that doesn’t make it evil in its essence.

But, human life and experience is not confined to the superficial. I am reminded of the famous study on infant survival that was done right after World War II. During the rocket attacks in London, many infants were orphaned, and these babies were cared for in large well-run orphanages. While the basics of food, water, clothing and protection were given to all the children, only a certain segment of them survived. The essential factor turned out to be the availability of touch. Those babies who were not held enough, that is to say who did not experience enough human touch, did not thrive. Only those who were touched enough were able to survive. There are those who worship in our churches who do not receive any touch apart from that occasional ritual touch in church (or when they go to a physician).Even adults need loving touch in order to thrive. (Of course, abusive touch is another matter altogether, for children and adults alike.)

Loving touch is vital to human beings, so when we make rules that limit touch, we must be aware of what we are losing, and we must attempt to recreate those lost, but necessary, experiences in other ways.

From the perspective of that human need for relationally based touch, we can identify many layers at which touch can happen. And not all of them require physical touch. So let me suggest that we need to touch minds – and we do that through deep conversation and dialog. We need to touch spirits – and we do that through prayer, worship, singing together, and even through our communal “play.” We need to touch emotionally – and we do that by laughing and crying together and by mutually deep listening to the emotional foundations of our deepest held beliefs.

While we go about adopting approaches to limit the spread of viruses (and I strongly recommend that we do), let us also adopt approaches to maximizing human being-to-human being contact in as many other ways as we can. Let’s find ways to celebrate together, to grieve together, to sing together, to play together, to listen deeply and respectfully to one another, and to address the legitimate needs of the world around us together.

But don’t forget to use your hand sanitizer.

Wayne Gustafson
“Never place a period where God has placed a comma.” Gracie Allen
The United Church__of Christ

Creating Sacred Space

As I sit to write this, I find my mind wandering to all of the other tasks and issues that threaten to overwhelm me at the beginning of the church program year. While I have found it helpful to write about Healthy Christian Practices over the last three months, those blog installments have not addressed a significant challenge that we all face (One that is particularly difficult at this time of year): How do we find the time to do the things we really want to do? For that matter, how do we even find the time to think about, much less decide on, the things we really want to do?

The range of choices that we as individuals and families have these days is truly dizzying. I remember many years ago reading a case study in one of (therapist and author) Rollo May’s books about a woman who was depressed. Her healing came when she realized that she wasn’t required to take advantage of every opportunity that was available to her. While the process of making those choices might be difficult, the result for her was a more manageable and less anxious life.

Life has not grown any simpler since then. In fact, we now have many more choices than ever before. So the question about how to find time has become even more difficult to answer.

I would like to believe that we always choose to do those things that we truly want to do… Oh well, that was a nice thought. I find that making choices these days is like living in the middle of a carnival where we are surrounded by barkers who all insist that we try their game or ride. If we have children in tow, the choices are even more difficult because the barkers immediately aim their pitch at the spontaneity (ok, at the impulsiveness) of the young.

So, is it selfish to ask ourselves what we really want? Is it unchristian even to have individual desires? These are important questions because I think that our health depends on our ability to make some self-caring choices. My first concern involves how we find the space, time, and quiet thoughtfulness that I believe are necessary for us to make good choices.

One way to think about the dilemma is by redefining the problem. We often say, (and I have written above) that we need to “find” time, as if time is lying around just waiting to be found. The task becomes more possible if we consider “making” time instead. In a way, I am referring to sacred space and time. Sacred space and time is set aside, identified, and marked off by a clear boundary. This kind of time is in the same spirit as the Day of Rest in the creation story in Genesis. It is special time, when we have a chance to catch up with ourselves, when we can pay attention to those areas in our lives that are empty or out of balance. It is time when we can consider how we might address those needs.

Now, before you say, “I know where he’s going with this,” let me tell you that I’m not going there. I am not going to be just one more carnival barker trying to get you to “spend your time” here in church instead of anywhere else.

I want you to think about how you will address your own need for time, space, peace, reflection, and rest. If you think that the church can assist in this creation of space, then I want to hear about it. If the church is coming across like a carnival barker, then I want to know that, too. Ultimately, I want the church to be supportive in appropriate ways, and I do not want it simply to add to the complexity of decisions that people must make.

Finally, how does one “make time?” The first answer is to breathe. It’s amazing how much sacred space just one conscious breath can create. The second answer is from The Ten Commandments: “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” Sabbath times require a conscious decision to set them apart from the normal busyness of life. The only way Sabbath time happens by accident is when we are wounded so badly that we must step out of normal time while we heal. Clearly, that’s a very expensive way to have Sabbath time. Conscious decision is much cheaper (and less painful).

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

Beauty – Touching the Divine

In today’s installment, I will complete my discussions of the 10 Christian Practices that healthy mainline/liberal congregations tend to embrace (as articulated by Diana Butler Bass in Christianity for the Rest of Us). For review, the 10 practices are: hospitality, discernment, healing, contemplation, testimony, diversity, justice, worship, reflection, and beauty.

Dr. Bass connects the experience of beauty with touching the divine. She writes mostly about some of the ways that congregations use sanctuary design, music, liturgy, and art as integral parts of worship. I want to broaden the concept somewhat.

On February 18, 2009, I wrote in this blog (What Gives Life Meaning?) that meaningful human experience distills into three fundamental elements: creativity, the ability to appreciate beauty, and healthy relationships with self, others, God, and the rest of creation. Today I want to expand on the ability to appreciate beauty, although in a way, all three can be part of the same human experience.

I begin with the notion that in the search for connection with the divine, words and intellect can only take us so far. In worship, while the well-crafted sermon can stimulate thinking and give ways to connect the religious world with the practical problems facing people in their daily lives, more is needed to help us towards that connection with the divine. Beautiful sanctuaries, banners, music liturgy and ritual communicate to deeper parts of us. But the divine power of beauty is certainly not confined to worship. Creation itself communicates beauty to us in many ways. Here are two broad categories.

There is so much beauty in nature that touches and heals human souls: a quiet lake, majestic mountains, or the fragile and courageous opening of a blossom. Beauty exists in the large and in the small. By the way, the film, Microcosmos, demonstrates the diverse beauty in the very small world of insects and other creatures. We all have benefited from the beauty of creation. Of course, we miss the opportunity if we don’t keep our eyes open to it.

The second category is the beauty that comes from human creativity and relationship. We affirm that we are created in the image of God, even though we don’t exactly know what we mean by the statement. Creativity is one of the characteristics that we attribute to the divine, so, perhaps our ability to be creative is an expression of divine creativity. One might say that being creative is one of the legitimate purposes for our lives. Whenever we engage in creativity, we add some beauty to the world, and we increase the chances for others to appreciate the beauty in all creation. In this way we participate in touching the divine.

Too much world energy goes into the manufacture of “stuff” that soon becomes trash. True beauty does not come from the domination of the natural world. True beauty comes from the creative relationship between the spirit of imagination in the person and the life energy of the natural world. We have a sacred opportunity to touch the divine whenever we participate in that relationship. Furthermore, the creation of beauty is very sustainable. It produces abundance, not scarcity. Look around you. In today’s world, which do you think we need more?

So touch the divine and make sure there are many ways for it to happen within the life of the congregation.

Wayne Gustafson
“God is still speaking.”
The United Church__ of Christ

Reflection – Thinking Theologically

The blog installments for this week and next week will conclude our exploration of the 10 practices of Mainline/Liberal Christian Congregations, so ably articulated by Diana Butler Bass in Christianity for the Rest of Us.

Education is a central feature of a healthy congregation, but there is a perpetual danger that education can become merely indoctrination. Some believe that Sunday School is primarily for transmitting a basic knowledge of Christianity and that Adult Education (including sermons) is primarily for acquainting people with injustices in the world and encouraging them to respond with service and generosity.

For me, the issue is this: What is the relationship between religious education as the transmission of information and religious education as training in how to think theologically?

If we are going to see ourselves as participants in a long religious tradition in which people have tried to connect their growing understanding of God with its concrete expression in human relationships and social structures, then we must get some information about that tradition. In religious education, we get that by learning about sacred texts and the history of our religion. In an attempt not to be overly fundamentalist, many liberal congregations have found themselves also neglecting to learn about their sacred scriptures and the history of their religion.

While basic scriptural and historical information is important, indoctrination into proper believing is not our goal! Instead, while the study of scripture and tradition gives us a necessary foundation, the overriding goal is for people to learn how to “think theologically” and to develop ongoing opportunities for people to gather for “theological reflection” about the personal and social issues that face them.

One of the challenges for liberal Christianity is to let the world know, in unambiguous terms, that what we offer is training in theological reflection, not indoctrination into certain ways of believing.

Diana Butler Bass makes an important point when she discusses how America Protestantism lost its liberal motivation in the middle of the 20th century. She notes that traditionally, “those mainline pilgrims linked intellectual curiosity with humility…” And then, “I began to wonder if the problem was that mid-century liberalism had lost its sense of humility, becoming overly institutionalized and politicized, and in the process sacrificed its sense of wonder.” She goes on to say, “As soon as certainty replaces humility, it leaves little room for the intellect to transport the faithful to awe.”

Religion, at its best, challenges the narrowness of our thinking. It reminds us that the divine perspective is always broader than that of any individual, institution, or any particular interpretation of scripture. Our questions can be motivated by curiosity, faith, and a sense of awe at the wonders of creation, but we need to ask the deep questions, and we need a safe place where we as supported as we ask them and struggle with them. We need a place where we can trust that our theological reflection can educate us in a way that transforms, heals, and motivates to behave in ways that promote mercy and justice.

Some people think that Christianity requires people to leave their brains outside the door in order to be faithful. Liberal Christianity, on the other hand, requires us to bring our brains and, by the way, our hearts, too, in order to be faithful. It can feel scary to open ourselves up to unpredictable transformation, but if we don’t take the risk, we can then become arrogant in our certainty; an attitude that is sometimes expressed as: “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

What do you think? (Faithful inquiring minds want to know!)

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

Worship – Experiencing God

I am continuing my series of blogs based on ten healthy practices in healthy liberal/mainline churches. The list of practices is based on the book, Christianity for the Rest of Us by Diana Butler Bass.

When I was growing up, “church” was something you just “did.” In some traditions, the motivation was fear-based: “If you don’t go to church, God will be displeased, etc.” In other traditions, attendance at worship was an integral part of being a citizen/businessman. Others focused on spiritual (emotional?) experience without much regard for thinking. In my experience, it seemed that you had to make a choice between emotions and intellect in worship.

I must confess to you that when my family changed from attending a fundamentalist church to a more theologically liberal one, my reaction was mixed. I was strongly attracted to the more liberal bent in the new church, but it was still pretty boring. As I write to you now, I find myself wondering about what could have made my experience different. In all fairness, maybe I just wanted it to be more entertaining, but I don’t think so.

What troubles me is that I had no idea what to expect from worship or how to prepare for it. There was a lot of emphasis on solemnity and seriousness in worship, particularly in the preaching, but not much opportunity for transformation. Thank God for music, however. The sound of the organ, the beauty of the anthems, and even the experience of singing the hymns did something positive for me, but I still wonder if I could really call it transforming.

Against that backdrop of personal experience, I want to reflect on some of the ways that healthy liberal/mainline churches are approaching worship. I frame the question this way: “What is it about worship that makes it worth creating time for it in a busy schedule?”

Worship is a corporate activity, meaning that we do not worship as individuals, but as a congregation. It provides us an opportunity to see that we share in one another’s spiritual journeys. Still, there are some things that do happen to individuals. For one, worship helps us connect our inner and outer lives, and to the degree that we experience God in our midst, we are opened to moments filled with awe and wonder.

Sometimes we think that worship gives us a time of sanctuary – a time to be “out of the world.” One could argue, just as convincingly, that worship connects us with a world that is much more real than the world of accumulation, production, marketing, and addiction. Worship gives us opportunity to connect with what matters most. Worship is also an activity of mutuality rather than an experience (among many flavors) that we consume. In other words, our participation helps to shape the experience while at the same time facilitating our transformation into citizens of the realm of God.

The experience happens in many ways, which is another way of saying that there is no single correct form of worship. Because it is in a sense “alive,” it re-invents and re-imagines itself continuously over time. One of its finest features is that worship helps us to remain enchanted with creation.

We liberals tend to insist on bringing our intellect into worship with us, but the full experience requires that we bring our hearts, too. Sometimes our hearts can appreciate experiences that our heads cannot understand and might consider frivolous. With the assistance of music, the arts, beautifully constructed liturgies and rituals, and stimulating messages, we can experience God in our midst (even if we’re not quite sure what we mean by the term, “God.”

I would like to believe that worshiping together cannot be ignored any more than eating, sleeping, or breathing. But given the challenges of economic, social, and climate changes that life will inevitably hand us over the next few generations, maybe we really can’t ignore worship without seriously limiting our capacity to respond.

One final thought: Solitary “religious” experiences of awe and wonder in nature are real and valuable, but we also need to experience God in our relationships and communities if we are to thrive in what promises to be a difficult future.

Wayne Gustafson
“God is still speaking!”
The United Church__of Christ

Memorial Service Hiatus

Hello Friends,

Once again this week I am not publishing a regular installment.  My family and I are away to celebrate the Cape Cod version of my mother's memorial service.
She lived on The Cape for 20 years prior to her move to Michigan for her last three years.
Regular installments on Diana Butler Bass's book will resume next week, 8/9.
Thanks for your patience, and I hope you're having a good summer.

Wayne Gustafson

Justice – Engaging the Powers

Now that I am back from a week at the Chautauqua Institution, I am ready to resume my blogs based on “Christianity for the Rest of Us” by Diana Butler Bass. In this installment I will be writing about the seventh of the ten healthy Christian practices she identifies: Justice – Engaging the Powers.

Many of us grew up in a time when the American Christian Church was an integral part of the social fabric of society. From one perspective, this was good. Social acceptability of church participation caused many congregations to have full pews and healthy budgets. As with anything real, however, there is always another side to the story. Diana Butler Bass argues that even liberal/progressive congregations tended to base their activism in the secular Enlightenment values of fairness, equality, and human rights without much awareness of their spiritual dimensions. These legitimate values have existed for millennia as the backbone of Judeo-Christian faithfulness. The prophetic tradition in the Bible makes it clear that these are God’s values, and that they are based in the growing capacity of humans to enter into loving relationships and to base their morality and ethics in love.

For millennia, Judeo-Christian activists have believed that God was more interested in how societies treated their poor than how religious, obedient, or even generous people might be. Said differently, any religion that is not embedded in the social issues of justice and mercy is not worth much.

These words are easy to say, but their implications are huge – and difficult. Consider how much separation presently exists between the rich and poor in our culture. As global climate change and the world economy remains precarious, the pressures to hoard and to create enemies to fight against will be great. As fear becomes rampant, destructive reactivity will likely increase. At Chautauqua last week, Professor Ralph Williams (from U. of Mich.) referred to an idea originally put forth by Primo Levi (Italian Chemist). Levi said that once we identify some group as “strangers”, they soon are seen as enemies, and the logic of this dynamic leads eventually to death camps at the end. In other words, we tend to try to eliminate those we have identified as a threat to us.

So what is a healthy liberal Christian to do?

Bass suggests that healthy progressive ideas may not have sufficient staying power without being rooted in spiritual life and practice. Justice and Mercy then become expressions of a spiritual journey rooted in relationship with God and Neighbor. These values are the heart of most major religions. So we engage in open dialog, always seeking truth. We pray and contemplate together in order to move out of our more narrow, self-protective views. We enter into mutually supportive relationships. Justice and mercy are not simply individual perspectives. In fact, it is most difficult for us to act according to justice and mercy without the support of the community.

The challenges of the next few generations will be massive. Chances are that our governments and multinational corporations won’t be guided by divine love,

but will we be so guided?

Remember that we will not be able to work for justice and mercy without engaging “the powers.”

Time will tell.

Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has placed a comma.” Gracie Allen
The United Church__of Christ

PS. If you are not familiar with the Chautauqua Institution (or if you are and want more information), you can learn more at ciweb.org.
The theme of the Chautauqua lectures last week was “What Makes Us Moral? – from an Abrahamic perspective (Jewish, Christian, Islamic).”

On Vacation

Hi All,
Sorry I didn't think to let you know that I am on vacation this week.
I will continue blogs about Christian Practices in liberal/progressive churches next Wednesday (8/5).
See you then.
Wayne Gustafson

Diversity – Making Community

Diana Butler Bass writes about one of my favorite topics in the realm of Healthy Liberal or Progressive churches: Diversity. She argues eloquently about the value of diversity in community and that liberal theology (going back at least to Jesus) expresses the belief in a God of diversity, one who has created a diverse world, and who called it “good.” Her writing resonates with me and reminds me of a perspective on diversity that I heard a few years ago on a Seattle radio station: “In Seattle, we don’t just tolerate diversity, we celebrate it.” For me, that expresses a deep Christian sentiment that is completely in keeping with the gospel of Jesus.

Dr. Bass does not address a very significant issue, however. It’s one thing to be open to diversity in a local congregation (that is to say, not to exclude certain kinds of people), but it’s another thing to know how to bring it about. This is not an easy question because it requires us to look at local congregations in the context of broader community issues. Demographics and systemic community dysfunctions affect the specific approaches that a particular congregation might take.

Let’s look at Elmira, for example. Given this community’s history as one of the stops on the Underground Railroad, and given The Park Church’s beginnings as an abolitionist congregation, you would think that diversity would be easy to bring about. Still, the membership of The Park Church is surprisingly white (though not exclusively). Furthermore, deserved or not, it has a reputation of being open only to relatively well-off and educated people. To its credit, the church has always valued the contributions and leadership of women as well as men, and it has made great strides by becoming an “Open and Affirming” congregation.

Though some healthy changes have taken place, Elmira has a reputation of being a very segregated community. East and West are separated by a major traffic artery and, then, North and South are divided by a major river. Natural and manmade barriers can both intensify segregation, but if we are to follow Jesus, we must find ways to transcend these barriers. I recognize that barriers such as these aren’t going to vanish, so human being-to-human being bridges must be built. (Several bridges span our river. We must use them for our attitudes as well as our cars.)

Diversity develops when people from various walks of life have enough opportunities to have their stories heard and when they have enough opportunities to hear the stories of others. A common mistake made by well meaning congregations is to restrict their outreach to opening the doors. “You are welcome here. Come on in and tell your story.” As important as welcoming is, being willing to go out to where the stories are being lived is essential, too. It is not fair only to require others to cross the barriers in order to provide diversity for us. Instead, we must respond to the hospitality of others and become the source of diversity in their world.

Obviously, this is not an either/or situation. Mutuality requires that we do both: be inviting and be willing to respond to the invitations of others. Finally, we must remember that promoting diversity is one of the foundations for our Christian Gospel. So let’s be bridge builders. And let’s make healthy use of the bridges others have built for us.

How are you at bridgework?

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

Testimony – Talking the Walk

In this installment, I continue my reflections on the traditional Christian Practices that Diana Butler Bass has articulated in her book, Christianity for the Rest of Us. “Testimony” (today’s topic) is a word that strikes terror in many liberal hearts. It’s almost as troublesome a concept for us as “Evangelism” is. Bass notes (and I concur) that one of the main reasons for our discomfort is that many of us have rejected the kind of testimony that we have experienced or seen in so many conservative churches. In that context, testimony is kind of a public display of one’s spiritual credentials – that which serves to validate our “membership in the Body of Christ.”

Testimony, in its more liberal/progressive application, is like telling one’s story. The purpose is not to demonstrate that one has the right experiences in order to belong. Rather, the activity demonstrates how diverse our human stories are, and how much room there is in a community of faith to contain and celebrate that diversity. Bass indicates that testimony is the telling of personal stories – stories about “finding meaning, finding our unique selves, and finding God in a confusing and chaotic world.”

In my upbringing, I learned that my story of faith was supposed to conform to the stories of others, that I was supposed to use the proper language to describe the experience, and that I was supposed to be able to demonstrate concrete behavioral changes to validate my story. I don’t remember anyone telling me those rules in so many words, but that’s what I picked up.

I suspect that many people who are now in liberal/progressive congregations may have come to similar conclusions. I also suspect that there are many who stay away from participation in any congregation because they believe that all Christian churches require that uncomfortable form of testimony.

A shared truth among many people in our congregations is that they want to have a safe place to tell their stories. One of the saddest statements I hear from time to time goes something like this: “If people knew what I really believed, they wouldn’t accept my anymore.” When people do tell their stories, particularly in a liberal/progressive congregation, the response very often is more like: “What an interesting story. I have some similar questions and experiences.”

The worst thing we can do is to make our perfectly valid stories into secrets. When that happens, then some arbitrary orthodox pronouncement becomes the litmus test of faith. Practically everyone would fail such a test. Fortunately, we don’t use a test of orthodoxy. Rather we respect and learn from one another’s honest questions and journeys. There are many great questions to be asked and moving stories to be told! And heard!

So, what’s your story?

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

Contemplation – Open for Prayer

Diana Butler Bass writes ( in Christianity for the Rest of Us) her next chapter about Contemplation. She notes a sign in front of one church that said simply, “Open for Prayer.” On the face of it, the sign indicated that the building was open for people to enter so that they could pray there. But she notes that in that particular church, it also says something about the congregation: they are also “open” to the effects of prayer.

In a way, the focus on prayer as a primary expression of contemplation can be misleading. At the very least, it can distract certain “seekers” into less than helpful discussions about who God is and whether or not there are “answers” to prayer. In my reflections, I’m going to stay with the notion of contemplation itself.

There are two common understandings of contemplation: thinking deeply about something for a period of time, or meditation on matters of a spiritual nature. A bit of linguistic context might be in order. The word has two parts. The first part means something like with or together, while the second part refers to the temple, or more specifically, the space set aside where “auguries” took place. (I’ll let you look that one up yourself if you so choose.)

In short, auguries could be seen as “spiritual answers” to life’s questions. To get such answers is the reason many people go to church. I think healthy contemplation goes far deeper than simply seeking answers, however. Healthy contemplation is a complex activity that requires the presence of several factors.

I want to borrow a particular frame of reference that has been ascribed to John Wesley, founder of Methodism. He indicated that healthy religious experience took place in relationship to four perspectives: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience. I am suggesting here that we understand his four perspectives as broadly as possible. As I understand it, scripture is a cumulative record over many generations of the experiences of human beings in relationship with the divine. Some would maintain that only the Judeo-Christian Bible qualifies as scripture, but for the sake of this discussion, I will assume a wider definition. Either way, scripture gives us a time-tested perspective.

Tradition is not about institutional authority. Tradition includes those practices and those formulas of belief that people have found useful. The ten practices articulated in Bass’s book make up a tradition in Christian circles. Tradition includes the activities people practice that they find effective in enhancing their spiritual lives and connections. Tradition includes the presence and activities of the individual’s spiritual community, too.

Reason is the use of a logical approach. Contemplating as thinking things through is an example of the use of reason. Wesley may not have known this, but even our emotional lives have an intrinsic logic, and therefore qualify as a kind of reason.

Finally, Personal Experience is just that. It is an individual’s accumulation of first hand encounters in relationship with seen and unseen realities.

I think contemplation needs all four of these In our noisy and busy world, contemplation is very difficult. I could argue that much of the noise comes from strident promotion of just one of the four perspectives at the expense of the others (but that’s a good topic for some other time).

Some thinkers, like Ken Wilber, for example, believe that religious gatherings are uniquely suited to provide opportunity for, and training in, contemplation, meditation, and prayer, that lead to first-hand experiences of a less materialistic, more spiritual dimension of reality. I tend to agree.

With so much pressure from governments, businesses, and the media that shapes our thinking and our beliefs, we need a safe place to set all that manipulative noise aside. We need a place where we can embrace and be embraced by a much wider and less self-serving perspective.

One example will have to suffice. If (bear with me on this) God is love and therefore embraces all creation with that love, then what do life and our decisions in it look like from that universal loving perspective? Contemplation gives us a way to try it out.

One final thought. Contemplation is not exclusively an individualistic activity. Groups, including churches, also can benefit from embracing that wider view of reality. But watch out – what you encounter may well transform your individual life, and it may well transform the life of your church or group, too.

What do you think?

“Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not. God is still speaking.”
The United Church__of Christ

Healing – Entering Shalom

The third of the Christian practices that Diana Butler Bass identifies in her book, Christianity for the Rest of Us, is Healing. She rightly points out that among all Christian practices, this has been the scariest and least understood by the main-line, liberal churches. The reality of healing is another example of the way that we have effectively deferred to Fundamentalist Christianity to define the essential pieces of the Christian life. We have come to believe that healing is primarily an individual matter, that it depends on the supernatural intervention of God, and that it is brought to bear by means of activities like intercessory prayer (praying for God to intercede in the life of another) or by the “laying on of hands.” Liberal minds respond to the ministry of healing, especially as practiced by television healers, by dismissing it out of hand. It looks like magic and it looks staged, and we liberals “know” that both are suspect.

I suspect that Jesus would not agree with the common definition of healing that is held by the fundamentalists (who affirm its truth) and the liberals (who reject it as nonsense). Diana Butler Bass identifies healing with shalom, one of those wonderful words that can mean so much, including a condition of health and wholeness. But the health that shalom points to must always be seen in the context of community and relationship. It is not an individualistic commodity that some have and others do not have.

Shalom is sometimes translated as peace. This peace (and justice) is the hallmark of a healthy community. A healthy and balanced community does not pit the needs of one group against the needs of others. It demonstrates a broad distributive justice. So, where then does the individual fit in?

To answer this part of the question, I will make use of “Family Systems Theory,” particularly as it has been articulated by Dr. Murray Bowen. In his work with schizophrenics and their families, Bowen observed that dysfunctional symptoms manifesting in an individual were actually the creation of unconscious family dynamics over several generations. . Bowen rejected the notion that the symptoms of the individual belonged solely to that individual. For Bowen, the dysfunction belonged to the family system and its mode of operation. He maintained that if the systemic issues could be healed, then the individual’s symptoms would be relieved, at least in part.

Said in other words, healthy systems spawn healthy individuals, and unhealthy systems identify certain individuals as the “sick ones” in their midst. So, let’s look at a specific example from the life of Jesus. This past Sunday, the lectionary reading (Mark 5: 21-43) included the story of a woman who had been bleeding for many years. No one had been able to cure her, so she remained “unclean” and therefore, untouchable. In effect, she had to live her life cut off from her family and community. When Jesus, surrounded by a large crowd, comes near her, she works her way through the crowd and grabs onto his robe. Immediately, she is healed.

We could simply say that Jesus had the healing power so she was healed by that power. Or we could ask a different question. What gave her the idea to touch Jesus in the first place? Was she looking at it simplistically, that he possessed the necessary power? Or, did she realize that he was about the business of healing the community by breaking many traditional barriers? A woman who was “bleeding” was considered unclean and she could neither touch nor be touched. But Jesus touched people. He went against the common religious tradition by touching the lepers, the blind, the crazy. Perhaps if she, in her “unclean” condition could just touch him, she would experience, first hand, his acceptance of her. She believed that he could heal her by means of breaking through the barrier that separated her from everyone. What Jesus says to her is significant for our discussion. He says that “her faith” has healed her (perhaps that she had faith in his acceptance of her), and he invites her to “go in peace.” In this context, he must mean that the barriers have been broken and that she is no longer an outcast.

It’s important that we hear the larger message: Our “Christian Mission” is to spread healing and wholeness throughout the community by means of breaking down the barriers separating people. Perhaps when an individual experiences the remission of symptoms (like cancer, for example) what is really going on here is the power generated by embracing that person in the collective arms of the community. That demonstration of inclusion is powerful, indeed. And the remission of symptoms need not be the result of magic, nor does it require a special injection of divine power. The power to heal, to live in shalom, already exists within us.

What’s your understanding or experience of healing?

Wayne Gustafson

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

Discernment – Listening for Truth

I am continuing to write on the ten Christian Practices that Diana Butler Bass outlines in her book, Christianity for the Rest of Us. I am not, however, simply giving a chapter-by-chapter book report of her work. I am using her thoughtful and thought-provoking book as a jumping-off point for my reflections on the subject. Today, the topic is “discernment.”

Allow me to give you a little background on how I see the process of discernment. I live in an intentional community where the residents of our neighborhood have all made a commitment to be in relationship with one another and to share certain values about how we live. This is not a religious community, nor do our values function as absolute statements of belief or behavior. Those values simply provide a kind of structure that supports and guides the life of the community. The most obvious of our values is that we attempt to make our decisions by a process of reaching group consensus. (That it is a process also means that we don’t do it perfectly.)

I think, in some ways the community and its consensus process functions like a liberal Christian congregation might function. In liberal churches, people do not insist that everyone hold to the same theological formulation of biblical truth. There is something significant, though, that holds it together. (Maybe it’s a discernment process.) The Park Church is a particular kind of liberal congregation because it operates according to Congregational Polity. This means, in part, that no person or group has the authority to tell the local church what beliefs it must hold, and furthermore, no minister or local church hierarchy has the authority to tell any individual what to believe. Congregational polity is based in a belief that if the conscience of the individual is respected, and if people share their “statements of conscience” with each other respectfully, then, at the least, the collective will of the congregation, if not the will of God, will emerge in the process.

In my neighborhood, the attempt to reach consensus is form of a discernment process. I find it to be similar to Dr. Bass’s description of the discernment process in her book. Consensus works best when there is an external value to guide the process. Some religious groups say that the Bible is the external truth, but there is still a great lack of agreement about what the Bible actually says. Others refer to the “law of love that is given by a God of love.” For still others, holding to a standard of mutual respect that plays out in honest expression and careful listening is enough of a value to guide the process.

A religious group, even a liberal one, might say that the divine spirit (or God, if you prefer) participates in the life of the congregation, both individually and collectively. So if the constituent individuals bring together the resources of scripture, prayer, tradition, personal experience, and reason in respectful dialog, then the “will of God” is likely to manifest in the consensus reached by the group.

This discernment process is risky. We sometimes find ourselves deciding to move in an unexpected and/or challenging direction. Also, when people become part of a community of faith, individual opinion and preference becomes less important than the emerging wisdom of the congregation. A discernment process can address the life and behavior of an individual, but it needs the foundation of the community for its validation. While this may sound like a version of “majority rules,” or “the tyranny of the group over the individual,” it doesn’t actually work that way. Reaching consensus is not a power play, nor is the will of the group imposed on the unwilling individual. It is a loving process that looks for solutions that address the deeper needs of the individual as well as the group. Looked at from the other side, consensus is also not designed for an individual (given enough time and persuasiveness) to impose on the group either.

In a church, the primary question in the discernment process is sometimes formulated as “Where is God in this?” or “What is the divine in us trying to manifest in the present?” But, other questions may be just as valid

If a congregation simply tries to figure out what to do in order to get more members and ensure its continued existence, sooner or later it will fail. The discernment process requires a congregation to determine its deepest identity and what it needs to do to honor their divinely rooted identity. Dr. Bass has concluded from her research that healthy Christian congregations tend to do those things that Christians have always done. I tend to agree with her. And I am convinced that when a congregation embarks faithfully in discernment, it can better live out its deepest identity.

What do you think?

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

Hospitality – Welcoming Strangers

For the next several installments, I will be writing about the ten Christian practices that Diana Butler Bass has identified as the ones healthy liberal congregations tend to use. The first is hospitality.

In my experience, religious groups tend to talk about hospitality a lot. Almost everyone agrees that hospitality is not only a good thing to practice, but that it is one of the centerpieces of not only Jesus’ ministry, but of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. Even more than talking about it, Jesus demonstrated hospitality in many ways. But, what do we mean when we use the term? I have a sense that people can mean many different things by hospitality. I will write about three possible meanings by identifying three classifications of people: aliens (strangers), “Gentiles”, and members of the family.

Everyone knows that we Christians should offer hospitality to strangers. But even the most progressive group that sees itself as broadly hospitable can find itself confronted with strangers who don’t fit their expectations. I am reminded of a procedure that was used by fraternities in college to weed out good prospective “pledges” from those who did not pass muster. When prospective members visited the fraternity, different rooms were identified for different purposes. One room was for those people most likely to be selected, but if visitors said or did something that did not fit expectations, they were subtly moved into another room for those who were not likely to be selected. Hospitality was offered to all, but not the same kind of hospitality. Do we ever do this in our churches? Do we keep some people in second- or third-class status? Are we conscious about the weeding out we do?

The Temple in Jerusalem had a large area called the Court of the Gentiles. These were people who had reasons to be in the temple, but who were not allowed into the area where worship took place. We liberals are often quite critical of the more fundamentalist groups who (in our estimation) check people for the correctness of their theology before granting entrance. We don’t set such boundaries in the same way, but do we communicate in some way that only people who think a certain way about God or the ways of the world are fully welcome in our midst? We have to work very hard to become aware of and then dismantle the walls we build between ourselves and others. It’s not enough to have the right idea about inclusiveness. We have to make the effort to be truly inclusive.

I have experienced hospitality from many church groups over the years, but those experiences have not all been the same. Sometimes I was treated very well, but I didn’t feel that I was being invited to be a “member of the family.” At other times, I have felt invited all the way in. If our hospitality still brands some people as “out of the family,” then we still have work to do. Even within our actual families, sometimes members are not encouraged to be or become their true selves. Instead, there is pressure to have everyone fit in. It is true that whenever members grow into their unique identity, the family is always changed by it, and in unpredictable ways besides. This is true for churches, too. There is a risk associated with inviting people into full membership in the family. They won’t simply changes themselves so they fit in. Their unique selves will change the nature of the group and the individuals in it – and once again, the nature of that change will be unpredictable. Still, it is a matter of faith for us to open wide the doors to the inner family. This is what Jesus has taught us to do. So, let’s take the risk and be less guarded about the door into the heart of our family.

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