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
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
