Sometimes people accuse liberals of simply wanting to read the scriptures their own way – that somehow liberals want the religious message to be easy. While some may surely take that position, it does not square with most of my experience. The liberal position requires us to have the courage not to close off inquiry once a generally accepted meaning of a particular scriptural passage or religious belief has been determined. For me, one of the foundations of liberal theology is the humble awareness that our understanding will always be somewhat limited, so we have to maintain our efforts to expand it. It is also true that once we look deeply at the meaning, our deeper understanding may require us to act courageously. Liberal theology is not for cowards.
I was brought up on a Christian song that went something like this: “So high you can’t get over it, so low you can’t get under it, so wide you can’t get around it, you have to come in by ‘the door.’” The leaders of my childhood church took these words to mean that if you didn’t believe in “Jesus Christ as your lord and savior” then you couldn’t get into heaven. While I couldn’t see it then, I now realize that they seem to have left out a good deal of the Gospel in order to end up with that understanding. For example, how about Jesus’ admonition to “take up your [own] cross, and follow [him].” In this context, I have come to understand the words of the song to mean (metaphorically speaking) that the only way to experience resurrection (new life) is by way of crucifixion (the death of the old). There is no way around it.
But, before you get too nervous, let me clarify that I am not talking about literal death by crucifixion, although that was certainly a real possibility in the time of Jesus and the time following. While physical death is always possible for those who promote justice, there are many other transformational changes that can be equally painful. These days such “crucifixions” are called paradigm changes.
All healthy religions call for paradigm changes. They call people to modify how they see the values of life. They call people to set aside their superficial distractions so that they can experience a more profoundly meaningful life. Seen in their best light, the necessary changes usually turn out to be really good for us, but that awareness usually doesn’t happen until we go through the pain of the loss of our old worldview.
We face many paradigm changes today. One of the challenges facing the church is how to modify the structure of the church so it can promote the Gospel in a rapidly changing society. As it turns there is nothing of absolute value in anything we do. If we insist that our institutional forms shouldn’t change, then we will make ourselves obsolete. So, we have to think about our format for worship and our preferred schedule for events. If these are considered to be more important than “the message,” then the church is doomed.
Another paradigm change requires us to see our universal connection with one another: that we do not stand before judgment as individuals, but as communities, even as the whole of creation.
While changes may be most obvious in form, the deeper meaning of them is that we take very seriously the message of broadly distributed justice and the ongoing presence of divine love. Paradigm changes are not designed to make religion more palatable. Rather, the changes must reflect our deepest integrity and our willingness to go through “the unavoidable door.” While metaphorical crucifixion and loss may be difficult, we are supplied with a large measure of hope. Jesus tells us in many ways that we will not be abandoned. I think his words are consistent with a Sufi (mystical Islamic) saying: “When my heart cries for what it has lost, my soul rejoices for what it has found.”
Let’s have the courage to go through “the door” together.
Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has places a comma.” Gracie Allen
The United Church__of Christ
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tests and Experiments
I once had a saying posted on my office bulletin board that said:
Actually, I think my revision is what the original statement really means. The kind of test it refers to is more like a practice run (an experiment, if you will) to see how things operate so you can make modifications based on what you learn from the results.
My concern is that so many people think about life as the kind of test one takes in school or the kind of test that determines if one “qualifies” for some right of entry or other benefit according to the measure provided by the tester. In much of Christianity, God is seen as “The Great Tester” in the sky, determining whether individuals will get “promoted” to heaven or “demoted” into hell. Jesus is then seen as the one who can “grade on a curve” so more people can “pass.” Such beliefs are rampant.
I read a disturbing news clip today. It was about a woman whose daughter died because the mother felt her faith was being “tested” by God. She did not seek treatment for her child because she was supposed to believe that God’s power “alone” could bring about the healing. The test turned out to be more essential than her daughter’s life.
I disagree strongly with the validity of that model. I don’t believe that life is primarily about right and wrong answers. I don’t believe that God gives the “final exam” or the “final grade.” On the other hand, life is not exactly a practice run either, although some people do look at earthly life that way. Proponents of that view believe that the only life that matters is the heavenly life; that earthly life is, at best, a practice run in advance of the real thing.
I ask you, instead, to consider life as more of an experiment. When I was in college, studying chemistry, the professor I was assisting in a research project taught me an important lesson. That one lesson has turned out to be worth all the tuition I paid for my college education. When we were about to run a laboratory experiment, I said, “I hope it works.” He responded that I had the wrong idea, that “no matter what happens, we will learn something.” Life is an experiment, not a test. I have made use of that perspective for more that forty years, and it still serves me well.
Perhaps our purpose in life is not to “get it right” or even to be “saved from our sinfulness,” so we will be allowed to collect the eternal prize. Perhaps our purpose is, instead, to learn, to experience, to develop, always to be in the process of “becoming” towards fullness. When Jesus challenges us to forgive one another, I don’t think he means simply to forget what has happened. I think he means that we must always leave room for the learning, healing, and development that proceed from the event. To use more theological language, I think he means that we can have faith in the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit of God. (By the way, the only unforgivable sin that Jesus identifies is the denial of the ever-present and loving activity of the Holy Spirit of God.)
You see, from this perspective God is always intimately involved in our experiments and in the growth that results from what we learn. Our objective is not primarily about getting “better”, that is to say, becoming “more acceptable.” It’s more about expanding and deepening our awareness, our relationships, our integrity, and our ethical foundations. In this way, our communities increasingly embody the Realm of God.
Our participation in the experiment of life, both as individuals and collectively, is vital. The faithful stance, then, is to participate fully and honestly in the growth and development of humanity. Our “salvation” is not about getting the eternal prize. Our “salvation” is how we embody the Holy Spirit of God in the healthy functioning of our communities.
Wayne Gustafson
“No matter who you are or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
The United Church__of Christ
“Life is a test, it is only a test. If this were your actual life, you would have been given better instructions.”It’s a funny line as far as it goes. It points up how many times human beings are confronted with having to make essential decisions without adequate information. As I consider this saying, I wonder, though, if it might be more accurate to say: “Life is an experiment, it is only an experiment. If life were an actual test, you would have been given better instructions.”
Actually, I think my revision is what the original statement really means. The kind of test it refers to is more like a practice run (an experiment, if you will) to see how things operate so you can make modifications based on what you learn from the results.
My concern is that so many people think about life as the kind of test one takes in school or the kind of test that determines if one “qualifies” for some right of entry or other benefit according to the measure provided by the tester. In much of Christianity, God is seen as “The Great Tester” in the sky, determining whether individuals will get “promoted” to heaven or “demoted” into hell. Jesus is then seen as the one who can “grade on a curve” so more people can “pass.” Such beliefs are rampant.
I read a disturbing news clip today. It was about a woman whose daughter died because the mother felt her faith was being “tested” by God. She did not seek treatment for her child because she was supposed to believe that God’s power “alone” could bring about the healing. The test turned out to be more essential than her daughter’s life.
I disagree strongly with the validity of that model. I don’t believe that life is primarily about right and wrong answers. I don’t believe that God gives the “final exam” or the “final grade.” On the other hand, life is not exactly a practice run either, although some people do look at earthly life that way. Proponents of that view believe that the only life that matters is the heavenly life; that earthly life is, at best, a practice run in advance of the real thing.
I ask you, instead, to consider life as more of an experiment. When I was in college, studying chemistry, the professor I was assisting in a research project taught me an important lesson. That one lesson has turned out to be worth all the tuition I paid for my college education. When we were about to run a laboratory experiment, I said, “I hope it works.” He responded that I had the wrong idea, that “no matter what happens, we will learn something.” Life is an experiment, not a test. I have made use of that perspective for more that forty years, and it still serves me well.
Perhaps our purpose in life is not to “get it right” or even to be “saved from our sinfulness,” so we will be allowed to collect the eternal prize. Perhaps our purpose is, instead, to learn, to experience, to develop, always to be in the process of “becoming” towards fullness. When Jesus challenges us to forgive one another, I don’t think he means simply to forget what has happened. I think he means that we must always leave room for the learning, healing, and development that proceed from the event. To use more theological language, I think he means that we can have faith in the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit of God. (By the way, the only unforgivable sin that Jesus identifies is the denial of the ever-present and loving activity of the Holy Spirit of God.)
You see, from this perspective God is always intimately involved in our experiments and in the growth that results from what we learn. Our objective is not primarily about getting “better”, that is to say, becoming “more acceptable.” It’s more about expanding and deepening our awareness, our relationships, our integrity, and our ethical foundations. In this way, our communities increasingly embody the Realm of God.
Our participation in the experiment of life, both as individuals and collectively, is vital. The faithful stance, then, is to participate fully and honestly in the growth and development of humanity. Our “salvation” is not about getting the eternal prize. Our “salvation” is how we embody the Holy Spirit of God in the healthy functioning of our communities.
“Life is an experiment, it is a glorious experiment. It is your actual life and you have everything you need to continue to grow and develop.”I invite your comments and responses.
Wayne Gustafson
“No matter who you are or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Living Faithfully in a Crazy World
Sometimes the condition of life is just too much to handle. Sometimes the hatred, fear, greed, violence, and superficiality rampant in our world is disheartening at best, and crushing at worst. So, how can a person live a healthy Christian life in the midst of all that?
One possible factor in all this dysfunction might be called “externalizing.” Externalizing is attributing all the potential problems and challenges in your life to something or someone other than you. Businesses do it when they exclude the cost of their pollution from their “bottom line,” or when they drive local businesses into the ground by radical cost-cutting. Consumers don’t even realize that they are negatively affecting the long-term health of their communities by chasing short-term “savings.” Countries do it when they tag enemy countries (or enemy combatants) with dehumanizing names like “axis of evil” or “terrorists,” without recognizing the existence of the same behaviors in themselves or learning the oft repeated lesson of history that violence never brings lasting peace; it only generates increased violence in return.. Once you’ve branded your enemy as evil, then you no longer need to treat them as human beings – they are now undesirable objects that you are justified in removing by any means. Investors externalize when they consider only the immediate return on their money without looking at the larger and more long term human costs.
Some religious traditions also externalize consequences by putting the only real value on the afterlife, believing that the evil ones (not themselves, to be sure) will reap eternal punishment while they get the reward. This example appears to contradict my concerns about looking only at the short-term. You see, once they “receive” the (eternal) protection of Christ, then they need concern themselves with nothing else. The short-term benefit is simply “being saved” in the present moment.
But do we have a choice in the matter? Or is it inevitable that we will always externalize our responsibility to live ethically? If so, I believe that we all are doomed!
Healthy Liberal Christianity attempts to offer us a different route, although at the moment, I don’t think the approach is enjoying very much success. The different route is that we must begin with ourselves and our own ethical responsibility without either shifting the responsibility to someone else, or simply ignoring the problems because we’re doing just fine ourselves, thank you very much.
Sometimes we liberal Christians need to turn to the Bible for some guidance. Today, I’m thinking about Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In the fifth chapter, he articulates two lists of consequences: those of the “flesh”, and those of the spirit. (Now before we go any further, I want to comment on Paul’s juxtaposition of “flesh” and “spirit.” That the “desires of the flesh” are treated as evil does not mean that human “bodies” are evil. I would suggest that the meaning is clearer if we juxtapose “narrow self interest” vs. “God’s loving perspective toward all of life.” Self care is important and encouraged, but narrow self-interest is tantamount to setting one’s own needs against those of anyone else.) It is with this understanding that I move to Paul’s lists.
The “works of the flesh” are: “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.” That is to say that if narrow self interest is your guide, these behaviors are among the likely consequences.
On the other hand, the “fruits of the spirit” are: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Paul is not saying that we should will ourselves to behave according to the second rather than the first list. Rather, he identifies both lists as consequences of whether our focus is narrow self-interest or the broader life-loving perspective that the “Spirit of Christ” embodies in people.
From a psychological perspective, the more we focus on narrow self-interest, the more anxious and afraid we become. Anxiety and fear often serve as the motivation for list-one behaviors. When we open ourselves up to the divine (spiritual) perspective that was and is embodied in Jesus’ life and ministry, however, then we are most likely to enjoy list-two fruits, beginning with the “love that casts out fear.”
The task of healthy liberal Christianity is to offer this “good news” that the Spirit of Christ can motivate us to behaviors and relationships that are healthier for all of us, individually and collectively. Our world needs this good news because we are destroying ourselves and our world with list-two behaviors.
Now, I can preach about this perspective and I can write blogs, but we need something more to help ourselves first, and then other people as well to create the space in life where we all can experience the spiritual transformation leading to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
So, what are your ideas about how we can live faithfully and encourage others to do the same?
Wayne Gustafson
"Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn't"
The United Church__of Christ
One possible factor in all this dysfunction might be called “externalizing.” Externalizing is attributing all the potential problems and challenges in your life to something or someone other than you. Businesses do it when they exclude the cost of their pollution from their “bottom line,” or when they drive local businesses into the ground by radical cost-cutting. Consumers don’t even realize that they are negatively affecting the long-term health of their communities by chasing short-term “savings.” Countries do it when they tag enemy countries (or enemy combatants) with dehumanizing names like “axis of evil” or “terrorists,” without recognizing the existence of the same behaviors in themselves or learning the oft repeated lesson of history that violence never brings lasting peace; it only generates increased violence in return.. Once you’ve branded your enemy as evil, then you no longer need to treat them as human beings – they are now undesirable objects that you are justified in removing by any means. Investors externalize when they consider only the immediate return on their money without looking at the larger and more long term human costs.
Some religious traditions also externalize consequences by putting the only real value on the afterlife, believing that the evil ones (not themselves, to be sure) will reap eternal punishment while they get the reward. This example appears to contradict my concerns about looking only at the short-term. You see, once they “receive” the (eternal) protection of Christ, then they need concern themselves with nothing else. The short-term benefit is simply “being saved” in the present moment.
But do we have a choice in the matter? Or is it inevitable that we will always externalize our responsibility to live ethically? If so, I believe that we all are doomed!
Healthy Liberal Christianity attempts to offer us a different route, although at the moment, I don’t think the approach is enjoying very much success. The different route is that we must begin with ourselves and our own ethical responsibility without either shifting the responsibility to someone else, or simply ignoring the problems because we’re doing just fine ourselves, thank you very much.
Sometimes we liberal Christians need to turn to the Bible for some guidance. Today, I’m thinking about Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In the fifth chapter, he articulates two lists of consequences: those of the “flesh”, and those of the spirit. (Now before we go any further, I want to comment on Paul’s juxtaposition of “flesh” and “spirit.” That the “desires of the flesh” are treated as evil does not mean that human “bodies” are evil. I would suggest that the meaning is clearer if we juxtapose “narrow self interest” vs. “God’s loving perspective toward all of life.” Self care is important and encouraged, but narrow self-interest is tantamount to setting one’s own needs against those of anyone else.) It is with this understanding that I move to Paul’s lists.
The “works of the flesh” are: “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.” That is to say that if narrow self interest is your guide, these behaviors are among the likely consequences.
On the other hand, the “fruits of the spirit” are: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Paul is not saying that we should will ourselves to behave according to the second rather than the first list. Rather, he identifies both lists as consequences of whether our focus is narrow self-interest or the broader life-loving perspective that the “Spirit of Christ” embodies in people.
From a psychological perspective, the more we focus on narrow self-interest, the more anxious and afraid we become. Anxiety and fear often serve as the motivation for list-one behaviors. When we open ourselves up to the divine (spiritual) perspective that was and is embodied in Jesus’ life and ministry, however, then we are most likely to enjoy list-two fruits, beginning with the “love that casts out fear.”
The task of healthy liberal Christianity is to offer this “good news” that the Spirit of Christ can motivate us to behaviors and relationships that are healthier for all of us, individually and collectively. Our world needs this good news because we are destroying ourselves and our world with list-two behaviors.
Now, I can preach about this perspective and I can write blogs, but we need something more to help ourselves first, and then other people as well to create the space in life where we all can experience the spiritual transformation leading to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
So, what are your ideas about how we can live faithfully and encourage others to do the same?
Wayne Gustafson
"Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn't"
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Does God Have a Name?
A couple of Sundays ago, I spent the sermon time with the children in the Sunday School attempting to answer their questions. One six-year-old girl wanted to know who God’s father was. I think that was a pretty astute question for a six-year old. (By the way, I took her question as an opportunity to say that some questions can’t be answered, no matter how old, educated, or wise we might be. And, furthermore, it’s OK for us to ask questions that have no answers.)
A related question that many of us might have is “What is God’s name? When thinking about that question, I remembered the words of a minister friend of mine, spoken some thirty years ago: “God doesn’t exist, because God is not a thing, God is Pure Who.” I think that’s downright poetic, although I’m pretty sure I don’t know what it means - exactly.
Language is both wonderful and dangerous. It is wonderful because it has the capacity to provide elegant and poetic descriptions of reality. It is dangerous because its descriptions always fall short of the reality it attempts to describe. This dichotomy is particularly true when it comes to descriptions of, or names for, God.
For most people it appears that the designation, God, is sufficient to refer to the divine. (Perhaps it’s the only name they ever think to use.) Unfortunately, those powerful three letters are usually accompanied by a pretty concrete and detailed inner picture of who that God must be. (You can refer to my blogs on Images of God, June 4, 2008, or God Is Not a Being…, July 9, 2008 or my sermon, What’s in a Name?, March 8, 2009, if you choose. Sermons can be found at www.theparkchurch.org)
But for today, I want to focus what our names for God tell us. I think names can refer to the “identity” or activity of God, the presumed location of a particular revelation of God, or the nature of relationship with God– to name just a few. Let me give some examples: “God Sabaoth” could mean the God who commands the heavenly armies, or leads the heavenly council; “El Shaddai” means the God who is associated with the Mountain (Sinai?); and “Adonai” means Lord (not necessarily “lording over”), but possibly the one to whom I relate as the central author of the meaning of life.
When Moses asked about the divine name, he received an answer something like YHWH which seems to be a poetic construction meaning something like: “I Am What I Choose to Be, or I Create Everything, or even I Love. Clearly, Moses’ question was more than “What do you want me to call you?”
These examples of names for God do not mean that God is confined to a particular function, location, or relationship. In Christian Theology, we refer to the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who constitute in mystical symbolic fashion who God is. All these names are attempts to capture the nature of God in terms of human experience and relationship. Where conservative and liberal theology might part ways is around whether these symbolic representations actually say anything about God, or if they simply stand as our poetic, but limited, attempts to express the inexpressible.
Some of you might remember the Lenten Study we did in 2008 about how to understand the Lord’s Prayer from the perspective of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke (Recordings of those classes can also be found at www.theparkchurch.org). In the Aramaic word for God, abwoon (a-bw-oo-n), each letter or two carries a particular meaning, so when we put them all together we get something like “Unity – Gives Birth – Via Breath/Spirit - To New Forms”. But, that expanded definition of the name is still limited to terms that come out of our own human experience.
Even though Jesus used a term similar to this for God (in Greek “abba” is a familiar form that could mean, Daddy), it seems to me that Jesus never got too hung up on identifying “correct” names for God. He mostly wanted people to know that they already belonged fully to Creation and that there was enough divine love for everyone to have an adequate share. He also made it clear that divine reality was most easily experienced in loving relationships among people - And that is why we come together as a congregation.
I guess an important question for me is to wonder about the degree to which your names for God are confining, or whether they point beyond their own limitations toward your experience or intuition of divine reality. This is not a test question. So, what do you think?
Wayne Gustafson
“God is Still Speaking”
The United Church__of Christ
A related question that many of us might have is “What is God’s name? When thinking about that question, I remembered the words of a minister friend of mine, spoken some thirty years ago: “God doesn’t exist, because God is not a thing, God is Pure Who.” I think that’s downright poetic, although I’m pretty sure I don’t know what it means - exactly.
Language is both wonderful and dangerous. It is wonderful because it has the capacity to provide elegant and poetic descriptions of reality. It is dangerous because its descriptions always fall short of the reality it attempts to describe. This dichotomy is particularly true when it comes to descriptions of, or names for, God.
For most people it appears that the designation, God, is sufficient to refer to the divine. (Perhaps it’s the only name they ever think to use.) Unfortunately, those powerful three letters are usually accompanied by a pretty concrete and detailed inner picture of who that God must be. (You can refer to my blogs on Images of God, June 4, 2008, or God Is Not a Being…, July 9, 2008 or my sermon, What’s in a Name?, March 8, 2009, if you choose. Sermons can be found at www.theparkchurch.org)
But for today, I want to focus what our names for God tell us. I think names can refer to the “identity” or activity of God, the presumed location of a particular revelation of God, or the nature of relationship with God– to name just a few. Let me give some examples: “God Sabaoth” could mean the God who commands the heavenly armies, or leads the heavenly council; “El Shaddai” means the God who is associated with the Mountain (Sinai?); and “Adonai” means Lord (not necessarily “lording over”), but possibly the one to whom I relate as the central author of the meaning of life.
When Moses asked about the divine name, he received an answer something like YHWH which seems to be a poetic construction meaning something like: “I Am What I Choose to Be, or I Create Everything, or even I Love. Clearly, Moses’ question was more than “What do you want me to call you?”
These examples of names for God do not mean that God is confined to a particular function, location, or relationship. In Christian Theology, we refer to the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who constitute in mystical symbolic fashion who God is. All these names are attempts to capture the nature of God in terms of human experience and relationship. Where conservative and liberal theology might part ways is around whether these symbolic representations actually say anything about God, or if they simply stand as our poetic, but limited, attempts to express the inexpressible.
Some of you might remember the Lenten Study we did in 2008 about how to understand the Lord’s Prayer from the perspective of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke (Recordings of those classes can also be found at www.theparkchurch.org). In the Aramaic word for God, abwoon (a-bw-oo-n), each letter or two carries a particular meaning, so when we put them all together we get something like “Unity – Gives Birth – Via Breath/Spirit - To New Forms”. But, that expanded definition of the name is still limited to terms that come out of our own human experience.
Even though Jesus used a term similar to this for God (in Greek “abba” is a familiar form that could mean, Daddy), it seems to me that Jesus never got too hung up on identifying “correct” names for God. He mostly wanted people to know that they already belonged fully to Creation and that there was enough divine love for everyone to have an adequate share. He also made it clear that divine reality was most easily experienced in loving relationships among people - And that is why we come together as a congregation.
I guess an important question for me is to wonder about the degree to which your names for God are confining, or whether they point beyond their own limitations toward your experience or intuition of divine reality. This is not a test question. So, what do you think?
Wayne Gustafson
“God is Still Speaking”
The United Church__of Christ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
