For many years I have been fascinated by the mystical practices in many religious traditions like Jewish Kabbalists, Islamic Sufis, Tibetan Buddhist Monks, Christian mystics like Mechthild of Magdeburg, Hildegard of Bingen, and Meister Eckhart, and other contemplative practitioners, for example. My rearing as a New England Congregationalist has made it difficult, though, for me to regard mysticism as a practical reality. (Somehow the New England Transcendalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson failed to capture my attention.) Still, I’ve read lots about it, both from the experiential and from the psychological perspectives.
So, what is the big deal about mysticism anyway? I think the point is a belief that human beings are capable of establishing direct contact with the divine. Implied in much mysticism is the idea that while creeds, dogmas, and traditional beliefs have their value, they can never tell the whole story. Individuals have the power, (and perhaps the responsibility) to bring life to their beliefs by means of that direct contact with the divine. It also may be argued that mystical experiences keep religious belief contemporary.
For some mystics, the experience comes unbidden. Saul of Tarsus, a fierce prosecutor of early Christians for example, was knocked off his horse and suffered temporary blindness, after which he became the most prolific and eloquent spokesperson for the Christian message. It was clearly not the experience he was seeking, but it’s the one he got. Other mystics open themselves up to divine contact on purpose by years of disciplined meditative experiences. They intentionally look for the quiet spaces residing in the midst of the busyness of the mind where they experience more of the depth and breadth of divine creation.
One of the greatest problems of mystical experience is that the words and symbols that are available to describe it are always less than adequate. As soon as the mystics try to tell others about what they have experienced, they know immediately that it wasn’t quite like that. Still, the experiences are important and need to be shared. If a listener applies concrete understanding, then the inadequately described experience becomes the next dogmatic statement of absolute truth, which obviously it isn’t.
Still, the church and the world need its mystics. Paul refers in the New Testament to the experience of “speaking in tongues” as evidence that a person has “received the Holy Spirit.” He goes on to write, that someone else in the community will have the gift of interpretation. For me, his statement means that mystical experiences are best understood in the context of community – that somehow when many perspectives and many mystical experiences are brought together, faith is enlivened and truth is expanded.
Ken Wilber wrote in Integral Spirituality that the modern church can become most valuable to the development of humanity by encouraging meditation and mystical experiences. Without some ongoing first hand experience, faith becomes stale, if not obsolete. If we consider the possibility that the spiritual realm is real and that “God is still speaking,” then we must find a way to continue the human/divine conversation. We have a responsibility to attune ourselves to what God might be saying.
What is “liberal” about this position is the awareness that what we discover in mystical experiences will necessarily modify (presumably in a positive direction) what we already know. The process of “unlearning” in order to make room for a new depth of understanding is very difficult. If we believe in the living presence of the spirit, then we cannot rely forever only on bygone mystics. Perhaps we must take our responsibility to be mystics, too, thereby contributing to God’s ongoing revelation.
I’d like to know what you think.
Wayne Gustafson
“God is still speaking.”
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The First Christian Community
A couple of weeks ago I made reference to the description of the earliest Christian community in the Biblical Book of The Acts of the Apostles (2: 42-47)
(and 4: 32-35).
What do we do with these extraordinary statements? They are particularly challenging given that we live in a culture for which self-reliance and the capacity to own possession (and a lot of them, to boot) are among the highest of values. Do these Biblical descriptions then simply articulate a quaint idea that has no place in the real world?
I must confess, I struggle mightily with the contrast between this Biblical model of community and our kind of community. In case you’re worried, I am not going to say that if we were good Christians we would just decide to live this way. Even those Biblical passages do not imply that this is a test of our morality.
What we have here is a description of how things are supposed to work in the Realm of God. But what is it that could make this way of living so attractive. Let me start from the negative side: Jesus and the apostles after him make the point that living according to the values of power and wealth will eventually lead to destruction. Hoarding creates scarcity and anxiety. Valuing possessions too highly inevitably leads to corruption. Their point on the positive side is that the only way to create peace and well being in the long run is by learning to be true friends with one another, that is to say, learning to care about everyone in the community, economically as well as emotionally.
There is no water-tight argument that can prove that model of the Realm of God actually works, but there is ample evidence in history that our way ultimately fails, and that there are always many who are necessarily disenfranchised and left in poverty and hunger so that others can thrive – for a time. Sooner or later, the system like ours always collapses into wars and other forms struggle for power. The crises of the last few years show us how far human beings are willing to go in torture and destruction in order to keep what we possess out of the hands of others.
So, how did those early Christians do it? How did they have the (political?) will to live completely at odds with their economic surroundings? Remember that the highest values of the Roman Empire were much like ours today: power, wealth, and upward mobility.
According to Acts, the difference appears to be “the great grace that was upon them all.” So, what does that mean? I think it means that they were invited into the possibility of inner transformation. I think it means that somehow they saw that their present system could only work for the relatively few at the expense of the many. Furthermore, they could see the maturity and “grace” in the leadership qualities of the Apostles. Their experience of “grace” told them that such maturity might be available to them, too.
I think being “mature” when it comes to possessions is very difficult, though necessary. The Buddha taught that detachment from the world brought peace and that attachments are always the source of suffering. Jesus taught that “where our treasure is, there will our hearts be also.” He also encouraged people to learn to love one another. We also know from such sources of wisdom that maturity does not happen in an instant. It is a process. Community is a process. The Realm of God is a process. Still, to participate actively in such healthy processes require that we first examine our highest values. Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man (or woman, presumably) to participate in the Realm of God.
I will finish for today with this final question: Do our churches promote the maturity necessary for us to embody the Realm of God on Earth?
What do you think?
Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
(and 4: 32-35).
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
What do we do with these extraordinary statements? They are particularly challenging given that we live in a culture for which self-reliance and the capacity to own possession (and a lot of them, to boot) are among the highest of values. Do these Biblical descriptions then simply articulate a quaint idea that has no place in the real world?
I must confess, I struggle mightily with the contrast between this Biblical model of community and our kind of community. In case you’re worried, I am not going to say that if we were good Christians we would just decide to live this way. Even those Biblical passages do not imply that this is a test of our morality.
What we have here is a description of how things are supposed to work in the Realm of God. But what is it that could make this way of living so attractive. Let me start from the negative side: Jesus and the apostles after him make the point that living according to the values of power and wealth will eventually lead to destruction. Hoarding creates scarcity and anxiety. Valuing possessions too highly inevitably leads to corruption. Their point on the positive side is that the only way to create peace and well being in the long run is by learning to be true friends with one another, that is to say, learning to care about everyone in the community, economically as well as emotionally.
There is no water-tight argument that can prove that model of the Realm of God actually works, but there is ample evidence in history that our way ultimately fails, and that there are always many who are necessarily disenfranchised and left in poverty and hunger so that others can thrive – for a time. Sooner or later, the system like ours always collapses into wars and other forms struggle for power. The crises of the last few years show us how far human beings are willing to go in torture and destruction in order to keep what we possess out of the hands of others.
So, how did those early Christians do it? How did they have the (political?) will to live completely at odds with their economic surroundings? Remember that the highest values of the Roman Empire were much like ours today: power, wealth, and upward mobility.
According to Acts, the difference appears to be “the great grace that was upon them all.” So, what does that mean? I think it means that they were invited into the possibility of inner transformation. I think it means that somehow they saw that their present system could only work for the relatively few at the expense of the many. Furthermore, they could see the maturity and “grace” in the leadership qualities of the Apostles. Their experience of “grace” told them that such maturity might be available to them, too.
I think being “mature” when it comes to possessions is very difficult, though necessary. The Buddha taught that detachment from the world brought peace and that attachments are always the source of suffering. Jesus taught that “where our treasure is, there will our hearts be also.” He also encouraged people to learn to love one another. We also know from such sources of wisdom that maturity does not happen in an instant. It is a process. Community is a process. The Realm of God is a process. Still, to participate actively in such healthy processes require that we first examine our highest values. Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man (or woman, presumably) to participate in the Realm of God.
I will finish for today with this final question: Do our churches promote the maturity necessary for us to embody the Realm of God on Earth?
What do you think?
Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A Year of Blogs
Well, today is the 365th day since I wrote the first words of this blog. I hope you have enjoyed the ride as much as I have. You never know how something is going to turn out until it happens, though in some ways the blogging experience has been as enriching for me as I had hoped. Some other parts of the experience have not been what I expected. For one thing, I had hoped to generate more comment and dialogue from you. I may possess an interesting perspective on life, but it is only one limited perspective. Your perspectives are just as necessary to help us move toward a more comprehensive understanding of the truth.
Perhaps you, my readers, are too polite to get into the kind of nasty discussions that are found on so many online blogs and forums. David Bohm has made the point that discussion and dialogue are not the same at all. “Discussion” comes from the same root word as “percussion” – so it might be thought of as the “banging of ideas against each other.” He goes on to define dialogue as something like “thinking together.” In dialogue, the point is not simply to make your point. The point is articulating one among many perspectives and listening carefully and respectfully to other’s points of view, all of which add a depth and breadth of understanding to the topic at hand.
This blog invites dialogue. In our second year together, I invite you to think with me and with one another about life’s challenging issues, so that we can identify and articulate a healthy variety of responses to them. I am interested to discover ways that the church can determine its healthy role in public discourse and how it can continue to challenge and nurture the growth and development of individuals and communities. I am interested to discover how Jesus’ image of the Realm of God can have validity in the 21st Century. And I am interested in providing a way for people to grow into a mature and useful faith.
I find that weekly preaching and blogging is healthy for me. Both activities help me to create some space for reflection on life’s most confusing and compelling issues. I believe that Healthy Liberal Christianity continues to be relevant, but only if it encourages people to move beyond the beliefs that were appropriate for the minds and lives that we had as children. We need to grow into a robust and mature faith – one that requires us to use all our adult faculties and that doesn’t require us to check our brains at the door. Still, there is one important qualifier about human intelligence – it is always limited.
Since the Enlightenment, people growing up in Western civilization have believed that everything, even matters about God and the realm of the spirit, could at least potentially be understood given enough time. Western thought lost the prior perspective that God is always beyond all explanations, models, and symbols. While we cannot know the truth absolutely, we can always learn and deepen our understanding. We must not relegate our images of God to what we can figure out with human intellect.
I have every intention to keep thinking and writing about these matters. I hope you will continue in the process as well. Let’s hear from you.
Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ
Perhaps you, my readers, are too polite to get into the kind of nasty discussions that are found on so many online blogs and forums. David Bohm has made the point that discussion and dialogue are not the same at all. “Discussion” comes from the same root word as “percussion” – so it might be thought of as the “banging of ideas against each other.” He goes on to define dialogue as something like “thinking together.” In dialogue, the point is not simply to make your point. The point is articulating one among many perspectives and listening carefully and respectfully to other’s points of view, all of which add a depth and breadth of understanding to the topic at hand.
This blog invites dialogue. In our second year together, I invite you to think with me and with one another about life’s challenging issues, so that we can identify and articulate a healthy variety of responses to them. I am interested to discover ways that the church can determine its healthy role in public discourse and how it can continue to challenge and nurture the growth and development of individuals and communities. I am interested to discover how Jesus’ image of the Realm of God can have validity in the 21st Century. And I am interested in providing a way for people to grow into a mature and useful faith.
I find that weekly preaching and blogging is healthy for me. Both activities help me to create some space for reflection on life’s most confusing and compelling issues. I believe that Healthy Liberal Christianity continues to be relevant, but only if it encourages people to move beyond the beliefs that were appropriate for the minds and lives that we had as children. We need to grow into a robust and mature faith – one that requires us to use all our adult faculties and that doesn’t require us to check our brains at the door. Still, there is one important qualifier about human intelligence – it is always limited.
Since the Enlightenment, people growing up in Western civilization have believed that everything, even matters about God and the realm of the spirit, could at least potentially be understood given enough time. Western thought lost the prior perspective that God is always beyond all explanations, models, and symbols. While we cannot know the truth absolutely, we can always learn and deepen our understanding. We must not relegate our images of God to what we can figure out with human intellect.
I have every intention to keep thinking and writing about these matters. I hope you will continue in the process as well. Let’s hear from you.
Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Is Holy Week an April Fools Day Joke? (Part 2 – Easter)
I begin by stating my belief that Easter may by the most important and the least understood of Christian holidays.
In a way, the best April Fools Day jokes are set up like a “sting.” You remember that old movie, “The Sting,” don’t you? The good guys have to convince the bad guys that they win. Even the audience is convinced that the good guy’s plan has gone horribly wrong – until another layer of meaning is revealed, and the audience gets it and releases a stunned sigh of relief. Part of the delight in seeing such a movie is reveling in the cleverness of the author, even if we, too, are taken in by the joke. In fact, it’s even more satisfying if we do get taken in for a while.
Holy Week and Easter Sunday represent that kind of masterful sting against King Herod, the High Priests, Pontius Pilate, and the Roman Empire. It’s so well done that even the disciples are necessarily flummoxed for a while. Both sides (with the exception of Jesus) are so convinced of the political efficacy of domination and power that they can’t imagine what the Realm of God is really about. They all believe that one side must be in charge, either them or us!
Much of the despair that the disciples experience between the crucifixion and the discovery of the empty tomb is directly related to their belief that Jesus is “coming in power” to overwhelm the Roman Empire and put them in charge. They have even argued amongst themselves about who will have the best seats in Jesus’ new “cabinet.” Ironically, their desertion of Jesus at the time of crisis shows how unsuited they were for those positions anyway. And, believe it or not, that’s the good news!
You see, part of the joke is that Jesus was not looking for the brightest and best people to usher in the “new order.” His Realm would not depend on the capable or powerful people ruling over the incapable and powerless masses. No, he selected ordinary folk, women, and children to demonstrate that everyone has a place in the Realm of God, and everyone participates in the leadership by means of mutual love and caring.
Sadly, the joke is not over. The Good News of the Realm of God is still obscured. The empty tomb did not convince the imperial powers to stop using force to get their way. The empty tomb did, for a time, usher in a new way of organizing a society, as described in the Book of Acts (2: 43-47), but there is strong evidence that the battles for power among the early leaders of Christianity did not go away – maybe not at all, but at best, not for very long. Paul fought for leadership with Peter and the others in the Jerusalem group. Women shared leadership for a while, but were soon put “in their (subservient) place.” And of course, when the church became a great institution, the use of power and dominance over others, was for them, and continues to be for us, the greatest temptation.
Apparently, the point of the Easter joke is still hidden. What Jesus did, he did without the use of power and domination. He did it without the use of magic or supernatural power. Jesus makes it very plain that domination systems are not sustainable. But still, when we face times of crisis, force and domination still rise up as our first choice.
Jesus called upon his followers to “take up your cross and follow me.” He promised that while there would be suffering in the transition, the goal of the Realm of God would be worth it. How many times will we have to fail at “empire” before we try it his way?
In a way, we’re still waiting for someone else to transform our social structures. That’s part of the joke. As long as we wait for someone else to go to the literal or figurative cross for us, the Realm of God doesn’t come into being. Jesus made it plain: We have to do it ourselves. We have to learn to exercise love more than fear. We have to learn to trust one another.
On Easter, Christian churches around the world will celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, but will we all insist that the real Good News of the Realm of God must remain in the tomb? As long as we leave it buried, the joke isn’t over, and Easter hasn’t really come.
What do you think the Good News is?
Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has placed a comma.” Gracie Allen
The United Church__of Christ
In a way, the best April Fools Day jokes are set up like a “sting.” You remember that old movie, “The Sting,” don’t you? The good guys have to convince the bad guys that they win. Even the audience is convinced that the good guy’s plan has gone horribly wrong – until another layer of meaning is revealed, and the audience gets it and releases a stunned sigh of relief. Part of the delight in seeing such a movie is reveling in the cleverness of the author, even if we, too, are taken in by the joke. In fact, it’s even more satisfying if we do get taken in for a while.
Holy Week and Easter Sunday represent that kind of masterful sting against King Herod, the High Priests, Pontius Pilate, and the Roman Empire. It’s so well done that even the disciples are necessarily flummoxed for a while. Both sides (with the exception of Jesus) are so convinced of the political efficacy of domination and power that they can’t imagine what the Realm of God is really about. They all believe that one side must be in charge, either them or us!
Much of the despair that the disciples experience between the crucifixion and the discovery of the empty tomb is directly related to their belief that Jesus is “coming in power” to overwhelm the Roman Empire and put them in charge. They have even argued amongst themselves about who will have the best seats in Jesus’ new “cabinet.” Ironically, their desertion of Jesus at the time of crisis shows how unsuited they were for those positions anyway. And, believe it or not, that’s the good news!
You see, part of the joke is that Jesus was not looking for the brightest and best people to usher in the “new order.” His Realm would not depend on the capable or powerful people ruling over the incapable and powerless masses. No, he selected ordinary folk, women, and children to demonstrate that everyone has a place in the Realm of God, and everyone participates in the leadership by means of mutual love and caring.
Sadly, the joke is not over. The Good News of the Realm of God is still obscured. The empty tomb did not convince the imperial powers to stop using force to get their way. The empty tomb did, for a time, usher in a new way of organizing a society, as described in the Book of Acts (2: 43-47), but there is strong evidence that the battles for power among the early leaders of Christianity did not go away – maybe not at all, but at best, not for very long. Paul fought for leadership with Peter and the others in the Jerusalem group. Women shared leadership for a while, but were soon put “in their (subservient) place.” And of course, when the church became a great institution, the use of power and dominance over others, was for them, and continues to be for us, the greatest temptation.
Apparently, the point of the Easter joke is still hidden. What Jesus did, he did without the use of power and domination. He did it without the use of magic or supernatural power. Jesus makes it very plain that domination systems are not sustainable. But still, when we face times of crisis, force and domination still rise up as our first choice.
Jesus called upon his followers to “take up your cross and follow me.” He promised that while there would be suffering in the transition, the goal of the Realm of God would be worth it. How many times will we have to fail at “empire” before we try it his way?
In a way, we’re still waiting for someone else to transform our social structures. That’s part of the joke. As long as we wait for someone else to go to the literal or figurative cross for us, the Realm of God doesn’t come into being. Jesus made it plain: We have to do it ourselves. We have to learn to exercise love more than fear. We have to learn to trust one another.
On Easter, Christian churches around the world will celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, but will we all insist that the real Good News of the Realm of God must remain in the tomb? As long as we leave it buried, the joke isn’t over, and Easter hasn’t really come.
What do you think the Good News is?
Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has placed a comma.” Gracie Allen
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Is Holy Week an April Fools Day Joke? (Part 1 – Palm Sunday)
April Fools Day is a time for pranks and outrageous claims. Such pranks are sometimes designed to look just plausible enough for us to swallow. Of course, with a real April Fools joke, you soon catch on to the craziness of it.
Paul must have known something about April Fools jokes because he refers to the foundation of Christianity as “the folly (or foolishness) of the cross,” so maybe my perspective on Holy Week is not so unusual after all. Some of my thinking about the foolishness of Christianity and Holy Week has been encouraged by a book that my adult education class has been using for a Lenten study. It was written by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan and is called “The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem.”
In a way, Palm Sunday can be seen as a “sight-gag.” Most processions into Jerusalem usually involved the King or Roman Procurator and were lavish demonstrations of power, complete with plenty of soldiers and weaponry. Part of that show of power was to provide immediate protection, but the larger reason was to discourage those who would even consider rebellion against King or Empire. To use a phrase from Borg and Crossan, the imperial procession was a tangible demonstration of the overwhelming power of the Roman “domination system.”
On Palm Sunday, Jesus enters the city by a different gate, accompanied by a very different procession. There are no horses or chariots, no soldiers or armor, and the crowd was probably a rag-tag group of peasants. And he’s riding on a donkey! Is he trying to stage a spoof of the imperial procession? Perhaps, in a way he is.
The “script” for his entry into Jerusalem comes from the Hebrew prophet, Zechariah, who lived about 500 years before Jesus. While the Roman Empire advertised peace, that illusion of peace was created by massive imperial force. Those who challenged the pax Romana were summarily executed, usually by crucifixion.
Zechariah describes a very different kind of peace, brought by a very different kind of Messiah.
We must think carefully if we are to “get the joke.” How is this humble Messiah supposed to extend his rule of peaceful dominion “to the ends of the earth?” How crazy is that?! Everyone knows that the only way to defeat violence and terrorism is by even greater violence and terrorism! Right?
Our “Christian Nation” (as some would call it) has put its lot in with the “imperial procession” and its demonstration of superior force. But that’s the joke, don’t you see? The moment we side with “force as the only road to peace,” we’ve lost the message of the “humble king, riding on a donkey”.
As I think of it, while the Palm Sunday procession might in some ways ridicule imperial power, the real April Fools Day joke is perpetrated by the domination system. The joke is that force can bring peace! Christianity, according to Jesus, proclaims that violence can never conquer fear; only love can conquer fear. How long are we going to fall for the imperial joke?
Wayne Gustafson
“God is still speaking.”
The United Church__of Christ
Paul must have known something about April Fools jokes because he refers to the foundation of Christianity as “the folly (or foolishness) of the cross,” so maybe my perspective on Holy Week is not so unusual after all. Some of my thinking about the foolishness of Christianity and Holy Week has been encouraged by a book that my adult education class has been using for a Lenten study. It was written by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan and is called “The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem.”
In a way, Palm Sunday can be seen as a “sight-gag.” Most processions into Jerusalem usually involved the King or Roman Procurator and were lavish demonstrations of power, complete with plenty of soldiers and weaponry. Part of that show of power was to provide immediate protection, but the larger reason was to discourage those who would even consider rebellion against King or Empire. To use a phrase from Borg and Crossan, the imperial procession was a tangible demonstration of the overwhelming power of the Roman “domination system.”
On Palm Sunday, Jesus enters the city by a different gate, accompanied by a very different procession. There are no horses or chariots, no soldiers or armor, and the crowd was probably a rag-tag group of peasants. And he’s riding on a donkey! Is he trying to stage a spoof of the imperial procession? Perhaps, in a way he is.
The “script” for his entry into Jerusalem comes from the Hebrew prophet, Zechariah, who lived about 500 years before Jesus. While the Roman Empire advertised peace, that illusion of peace was created by massive imperial force. Those who challenged the pax Romana were summarily executed, usually by crucifixion.
Zechariah describes a very different kind of peace, brought by a very different kind of Messiah.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the warhorse from Jerusalem;
and the battle-bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations;
his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Zech. 9: 9-10
We must think carefully if we are to “get the joke.” How is this humble Messiah supposed to extend his rule of peaceful dominion “to the ends of the earth?” How crazy is that?! Everyone knows that the only way to defeat violence and terrorism is by even greater violence and terrorism! Right?
Our “Christian Nation” (as some would call it) has put its lot in with the “imperial procession” and its demonstration of superior force. But that’s the joke, don’t you see? The moment we side with “force as the only road to peace,” we’ve lost the message of the “humble king, riding on a donkey”.
As I think of it, while the Palm Sunday procession might in some ways ridicule imperial power, the real April Fools Day joke is perpetrated by the domination system. The joke is that force can bring peace! Christianity, according to Jesus, proclaims that violence can never conquer fear; only love can conquer fear. How long are we going to fall for the imperial joke?
Wayne Gustafson
“God is still speaking.”
The United Church__of Christ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
