Healthy Liberal Christianity at Park Church

Where am I blogging now?

2010-10-06T10:01:00.002-04:00

Greetings friends,

I appreciate all of you who have continued to come to this site. If you are interested in following what I am presently writing, here's some information for you.

First of all, I have finished my term as Interim Minister of The Park Church in Elmira NY. And (except for this post) I am no longer posting regularly to this blog. It remains available for those of you who want to look back at what I have written about "Healthy Liberal Christianity."

My main writing project these days is another novel that continues the exploration begun in Community of Promise: The Untold Story of Moses. Meanwhile, I am publishing weekly to a blog loosely associated with that novel. Because the story deals with Political, Economic, Religious, and Community issues, those are the areas that I write about in the new blog.

I invite you to check it out at:
http://entospress.blogspot.com

On that blog page, you can subscribe to an RSS feed of the posts, and you can become a "fan" of my "Community of Promise" Facebook page.

Thanks again for being faithful readers of "Healthy Liberal Christianity." I hope you will continue to participate in the conversation.

Wayne Gustafson
"The Promised Land is Within and Among Us."

I Have Books!

2010-04-20T08:12:00.002-04:00

Greetings,

In my last post of this series, I reported that I was publishing my novel, Community of Promise: The Untold Story of Moses.

Books are now available!

For more information and to order your copy, go to www.entospress.com

Thanks for checking it out.

Wayne

It’s Time for a Change.

2009-12-16T13:55:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if you outgrow church?

2009-12-09T17:50:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

Perspectives on Advent and Christmas

2009-12-02T11:20:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne Gustafson

Thanksgiving without Violence

2009-11-25T08:06:00.001-05:00

I grew up believing that Thanksgiving was a lovely holiday. It seemed to combine the best of family, food, football, and fall weather. As I grew older, I began to hear smatterings of stories from the Native American perspective and realized that there existed a shadowy underbelly of violence to Thanksgiving. As I have matured in understanding, I have come to know that everything real always has more than one side, so I am not surprised that Thanksgiving is no exception.

For a time, there was pressure to make Thanksgiving a time of confession and penitence in response to all the violence perpetrated on the indigenous population as white dominance swept across the country. While that approach was and is understandable, nothing healthy comes out of merely substituting guilt in the place of holiday gratitude.

I suggest that we can look carefully at our history and tradition in the service of creating a mature Thanksgiving celebration: one that does not perpetuate a culture of violence.

The history of Thanksgiving is thought to have begun at the Plymouth plantation in 1621. After landing at Plymouth at the beginning of winter, 1620, more than half of the Mayflower’s pilgrims died during the next few months. The bountiful harvest in the fall of 1621 gave the survivors good reason to be thankful because it assured them that they had a much better chance of making it alive through the next winter.

In their early years in Plymouth, the settlers were greatly helped by some of the natives, but within a generation, bloody war had broken out between them. Violence continued as a huge influx of immigrants displaced more and more indigenous peoples from their tribal lands. In time, the Thanksgiving celebration broadened beyond a grateful celebration of the harvest to include the (God given?) land, the growing opportunities found in a fledgling nation, and ultimately the values of freedom and democracy enshrined in America’s founding documents.

Now, I was born in the middle of the twentieth century into a culture that had long before been established. I didn’t kill “Indians”. Nor did I steal their land. Still, the land I know and love as my home is soaked by the blood of millions. These statements are not designed to generate guilt or to diminish how much I know I have to be thankful for. It is simply the truth, and I think avoiding or denying this truth perpetuates immaturity that results in spreading the spirit of violence. Gratitude should never simply be the product of violence, no matter how long ago it may have occurred. True gratitude must lead us to kindness, compassion, and to the creation of social structures that do not perpetuate the spirit of violence in our age. We must learn from our violent past if we are to create a non-violent future.

Finally, we must avoid the trap of implicating God in our violence. We should never thank God for giving us the land and bounty that is first taken from others. Sadly, too many religious traditions promote a God who effectively steals land from one group and gives it to a different group, purportedly in keeping with some inscrutable divine purpose. Such images of God perpetuate war and violence throughout countless generations.

If we’re going to be thankful for anything this year, let’s be thankful that we carry an image of God who is Love, and that we can use loving divine power to transform the world. We will never eliminate violence totally, but at least we can stop giving it divine authorization.

May the blessings you enjoy this Thanksgiving become the gifts you share in God’s Realm.

Wayne Gustafson

Is God Violent?

2009-11-18T07:29:00.000-05:00

Recently, I attended the Eastern/Northeastern Regional meeting of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. For those of you who might not be not familiar with Pastoral Counseling, it is the integration of psychotherapeutic and spiritual/religious perspectives. Pastoral counselors typically have education in both areas and have done some considerable work to integrate them. While many pastoral counselors are ordained ministers, that is not a requirement.

When pastoral counselors gather, we try to further our development in this integrated approach. This year’s presenter was Dr. Matthias Beier, who has written about the problems of violent images in the way people view and characterize God. (http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0826415849)

While his presentation was on a different but related topic, I think his work in identifying and the ever-present, but harmful violent God images is important, particularly for those interested in Healthy Liberal Christianity.

Many religions have traditionally maintained control and discipline through the threat of punishment by God. The standard logic used to support this approach is that left to themselves, people are so perverse that without the threat of punishment, they would have no moral compass at all. It seems to me, though, that such an approach backfires. Rather than keeping people from hurting one another, the image of a punishing God instead gives justification for violence in the name of some “righteous cause.” Jesus’ words do not support this justification of violence without some severe twisting of their meaning.

Fortunately, some very positive resources are available to help in this effort. At The Park Church, in worship we often use material from “Worship in the Spirit of Jesus: Theology, Liturgy, and Songs without Violence” by Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and Bret Hesla. Also, while legitimate critique exists regarding some of the lyrical changes in “The New Century Hymnal” of the United Church of Christ, I commend the publishers for their efforts to remove violent imagery as much as possible.

We have a lot of work to do in this effort. God and violence have been linked in human minds for a very long time. Still, those who can peel away the violent layers can then discover the loving God that Jesus followed and portrayed in his teaching.

Because so many human conflicts, sadly including wars, are fueled by the perceived demands of a violent God, our long term survival may well depend on our ability to hold god images that are not violent.

I’m curious how you react to this idea.

Wayne Gustafson

Defining Adulthood

2009-11-11T16:31:00.001-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the process of initiation. One of the life passages that initiations often accompany is the movement from adolescence into adulthood. In that blog (10-28) I wrote the following:

…one of the responsibilities of adulthood is a recognition that a community depends on a kind of mutuality of functioning: a recognition that “what we do to (or for) the community, we do to (or for) ourselves.”

Today I will consider some elements that might contribute to a definition of adulthood. Let me begin by noting that adulthood is not a state of being that a person can attain absolutely. Rather, it is an ongoing process of growth and development that is forever connected in present moments to people and circumstances. Adulthood includes specific rights and responsibilities, but even taken together these do not add up to a full understanding of adulthood. Religious practice has further confused the attempt at a definition because, too often religious practice demands a kind of childlike trust and obedience that does little to foster adult functioning. In fact, in some religious circles growing towards adulthood is treated as practically treasonous.

If we look from the perspective of brain development and functioning, we learn that the adolescent brain has not yet acquired enough capacity for impulse control. Some religious communities define adulthood simply by the ability to stifle impulsiveness. The favored motivation for impulse control in such communities seems to be the imposed fear of eternal punishment, and that alone. While I agree that the development of impulse control is important, it is only a preliminary step in the maturation process. The ability not to over-react to external stimuli is useful, as far as it goes, but the fear of punishment tends to restrict the capacity for mutuality in intimate relationship as well.

I am striving for an understanding of adulthood that includes the ability of the person to come into fullness. By this I mean developing the capacity to make choices, even when there is inadequate information about the eventual outcome of the choice. Adulthood includes the ability to remain grounded when others are being reactive. One example is the parent who remains firmly loving even when the child says “I hate you.”

Adulthood also includes the capacity to take appropriate risks, with the full knowledge that there can never be a guarantee of a specific successful outcome. Here is another way to say this: Life is an experiment, not a test. We can always learn something from whatever happens. Finally, one of the fundamental principles of family systems theory is that you’re not really an adult until you can go “home” and be with members of your family of origin while remaining firmly yourself.

So can we ever get “there” in an absolute sense? I doubt it. But such groundedness, non-anxiousness, self-awareness, and self-trust are important qualities to grow into over many years. I suppose I could conclude that being an adult means clearly recognizing the ways in which we are still growing and developing – and then being willing to take responsibility for who we are as individuals and how we choose to be present to the world around us.

In the spirit of what I have written, I know that this is not the final word on defining adulthood. I’m interested in how do you see it?

Wayne Gustafson

Whence an Ethical Foundation?

2009-11-04T10:32:00.000-05:00

Among the many concerns I have about how the church can serve modern society, the problem of the lack of ethical foundations is one of the biggest. I try to listen carefully when ministers, politicians, talk-show hosts, and other public figures trot out their beliefs and opinions about life. Most often when there are arguments or other public conflicts, it seems evident to me that opposing sides do not acknowledge that the intellectual and emotional foundations for their thinking are very different. In fact, I get the impression that many people today don’t really know what particular principles support their positions.

For example, when people use the Bible as a supporting document, whether they believe that the Bible is “The Literal Words of God” or whether it documents “Human experience of the Divine Perspective” makes an enormous difference (to say nothing about the specific passages they might “cherry-pick” as Biblical evidence). The first position might be summed up in the bumper sticker that reads: “God said it; I believe it; That settles it!”

The second position doesn’t fit so well on a bumper sticker, but might be summarized as: Whenever people look deeply at social issues from the broadest possible perspective, care of the poor, hungry, and disenfranchised seems to be of primary value. As I think about it, maybe it would make a bumper sticker: “God is the practice of love!”

My real concern in this installment of the blog has to do with where and how human beings can discover and develop the ethical foundations for adult decision-making. I see a need for ethical foundations in the life of individuals, groups, and governments. So much of what we hear seems to be pushing a few specific agendas with little reference to the principles that might undergird them.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that everyone should agree with my principles, but at least we should be able to have a conversation at that level. Without clarity about our principles, we end up chasing the latest fad, expecting (or wishing for) it to make an enormous difference by the time of “the next quarterly report”. We need to examine our principles carefully. It is not enough to state that a particular idea is good or bad. We need also to figure out who benefits, who pays, and what the long term consequences of each position might be. If I use my credit card today, that benefits me in the short run. But what will it be like when I have to pay?

We also need to know who our authority figures are and what they require of us. Take God, for example. Two different people can point to a divine presence as the ruler and guide (or “lord,” if you prefer) for their lives. One person might say that the only legitimate objective is to be obedient to parent-like divine directives. Another says that what God wants most is for people to take adult responsibility for wrestling with the complex problems of the world. This is just one example among many.

I want to know how today’s young people (and the rest of us, too) are going to learn the skills to identify, articulate, and utilize deep ethical principles. It may turn out ultimately that the church won’t be up to the job, but I don’t know of any other existing organization or program that could do it better. Of course, my bias is that liberal/progressive congregations are the most qualified to help people develop a satisfactory ethical foundation for their lives. I would like to think that liberal/progressive congregations can embrace the mission of helping people grow into responsible (ethical) adulthood.

Sadly, the very place that could provide this vital service ends up being marginalized by frantically busy lives, youth sports leagues, and electronic gadgets. Be assured, I am not simply blaming social circumstances for the church’s marginalization. Liberal/progressive congregations have lots of work to do in their own ethical preparation and availability. It may be that our comfortable ways of doing things might have to change. It might be that we have to focus more clearly on our purpose and mission in the world so that our events and activities address the needs for ethical education better. Instead of insisting on our traditional forms to live out our functions, we might have to reverse course and allow our “forms to follow our functions.”

There are many good resources to support the development of ethical foundations, like religious scriptures, philosophical treatises, and research. To make use of them, however, we need to read, study, and learn ourselves. In short, we can’t pass on what we haven’t taken in.

None of this is easy! Liberal/progressive congregations can be just as uninformed or invested in the forms of the past (including practices and buildings) as any other religious organization. Still, the need for appropriate ethical training is essential. Will we embrace this mission and find creative ways to carry it out?

What do you think?

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

Initiation

2009-10-28T14:03:00.000-04:00

One of the significant losses in evidence in modern culture is the loss of appropriate rites of passage and initiation rituals. Teens consider drinking alcohol, getting a driver’s license, and sometimes having sex to be among their major rites of passage. It seems to me that practices such as these are not really “rites” of passage, but are seen as “rights” of passage. “I’m old enough now so I have the right to engage in previously prohibited behaviors, (No matter how destructive they might turn out to be towards me or others.)”

While there might be some legitimate new behaviors that are appropriate to begin at certain ages, those do not constitute the central purpose or value of a true rite of passage. A true rite of passage has more to do with a kind of transformation that might involve taking on certain new responsibilities, for example. One kind of responsibility has to do with pledging to be a functional part of a community, albeit uniquely. Some people think of this as finding “your place,” but that concept has been used in such a controlling and prejudicial way in our culture that I want to say it differently. What I mean is that one of the responsibilities of adulthood is a recognition that a community depends on a kind of mutuality of functioning: a recognition that “what we do to (or for) the community, we do to (or for) ourselves.”

In its unhealthier manifestations, initiation gets confused with indoctrination. Indoctrination insists on the adoption of and allegiance to a particular world view. Indoctrination has been used enforce a kind of tunnel vision that maintains unbalanced and otherwise unfair social systems. Indoctrination tends to separate people from one another in a prejudicial way, while true initiation invites a broadening of perspective into a more comprehensive, and usually a more just world view. Indoctrination creates a power imbalance, while true initiation empowers individual and community alike.

One could argue that Jesus instituted a kind of initiation that he called the rebirth by the spirit. Its purpose was not to establish a new elite class, made up of people who held entrance tickets to heaven. The purpose of the rebirth by the spirit was a rebirth into responsible participation in a community that included “all God’s children.” Institutional religion is always tempted to forget this characteristic of inclusiveness and connectedness, and become exclusive instead.

Sometimes true initiations are designed to prepare people (both individuals and communities) to face new and often difficult challenges. If in fact we are confronted with potential social and environmental collapses related to the time of “Peak oil” production, climate change, and economic and social systemic fragility, then we need a new initiatory process.

Is it reasonable to assume that the church can participate in such a process? That depends. Will we really look beyond our immediate concerns for institutional survival? Will we cooperate with other organizations that have done such good work in articulating the current problems and challenges? Will we focus our concerns on the salvation of the personal soul (and the devil the hindmost), or will we initiate ourselves into the perspective that we are all in this together and that salvation vs. damnation is a community issue, not an individual one?

I propose that it is essential for us to create our rites of passage and our rites of initiation with deep care and vision.

What are your experiences with initiation (and its evil twin, indoctrination)?
And how would you imagine a healthy “rite of passage” into a challenging and largely unpredictable future?

Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has place a comma.” Gracie Allen
God is still speaking.

How Can We Generate More Light than Heat in Public Discourse?

2009-10-21T14:26:00.003-04:00

It’s a well documented fact that political (and religious) groups today are highly polarized. Political perspectives tend to be categorized as “Progressive (the term that has largely replaced “Liberal”) or “Conservative.” As I read the news reports about public demonstrations, including those that have obvious religious foundations, I am struck by a disturbing quality that seems to be common to all sides. The shorthand version is “We’re right, and you’re wrong!” I also include its evil twin: “If you do not agree with me completely, then you are my enemy!”

To be honest, I can’t imagine how any relationship, common ground, or new learning can be possible in such a divisive environment. Some would argue that Jesus demands that everyone take sides. (Both progressives and conservatives use this argument in some form.) They use passages from Luke and Revelation to support that position. Unfortunately, it seems that both sayings are taken out of their appropriate context. One comes from the third chapter of Revelation:

‘And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: ‘I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

While this could mean that the “angel” (or “spirit”) of this church hasn’t taken a clear enough stand on particular social issues, it could also mean that the people have kept their religious beliefs separate from their behavior. It is always appropriate for us to consider the behavioral expressions of our beliefs. The next lines in Revelation essentially say that the people don’t make the connection between their lifestyles and their spiritual poverty. Their lukewarm quality comes from their lack of understanding that their lavish lifestyles create suffering for others. They don’t change because they “don’t get it!”

The second critical passage comes from Jesus in Luke 11: 23

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

This does not mean that everyone who does not agree completely with Jesus on every point is automatically the enemy. When his words are taken out of context, the problem worsens. So let’s put his statement back into context. Some powerful religious leaders are spreading the judgment that Jesus’ activity of casting out demons is motivated by Beelzebul (the devil). Jesus has made it clear in many ways that he is working in the direction of the Realm of God and that people are either working with him in that direction or they are not. Whenever individuals or groups fail to understand Jesus’ meaning and motivation perfectly (which is probably most, if not all of the time), agreeing with him becomes functionally impossible. I think we can get a lot farther if we try to learn from one another rather than arguing about who holds the correct position.

In modern public discourse, the issue at hand is usually a particular policy (abortion, poverty, health-care, or marriage laws, to name a few). I would argue that human issues like these are so complex, that a simple agreement or disagreement with the policy does not easily translate into working for or against the Realm of God.

I would suggest that Jesus teaches compassion (which is the opposite of judgment) more than anything. A good beginning point in public discourse is to recognize that there are many legitimate issues. When people listen respectfully and compassionately the various perspectives, all have the opportunity to understand the inevitable complexities more deeply. And, please note that the responsibilities do not fall only on the quality of listening. When articulating a particular perspective, we are most honest when we recognize the trouble spots as well as the strengths in our positions. No solution is ever perfect. Or, in other words, no solution comes without significant costs and consequences to someone.

If we simply vilify all opponents as well as all opposing positions, then we will have no opportunity to increase understanding, nor will we have opportunity to develop “human being to human being” relationships.

I think it never works to say to someone else, “This is what you should believe or support.” Rather let’s keep posing good questions for one another, questions like:

• I think it never works to say to someone else, “This is what you should believe or support.” Rather let’s keep posing good questions for one another, questions like:
• In what diverse ways does this policy affect different social and economic groups?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of any particular position?
• Are there other creative approaches that might not be included in either of the existing arguments?
• How do we balance the needs of a community with the needs of the individuals that make up that community?

These are just examples, but if they are asked and answered respectfully, then everyone has the opportunity to learn and grow.

I will close this installment by noting another statement that serves to frustrate everything I have suggested above.

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts!”

In my opinion there is way too much of that attitude in public discourse today. So, let’s spread real light, and let’s receive the legitimate light that comes even from the positions of our opponents.

Remember, Jesus also challenged us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. That love belongs in all of our important conversations that deal with complex issues. Love generates light.

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

How, Then, Shall We Live?

2009-10-14T14:24:00.002-04:00

A few years ago I attended a conference where Wayne Muller was the primary resource for the weekend. He talked mostly about his book, How Then, Shall We Live?: Four Simple Questions That Reveal the Beauty and Meaning of Our Lives. His four questions were these: Who am I? What do I love? How shall I live, knowing I will die? What is my gift to the family of the earth?

I want to make use of the point of his third question, but modify the context a bit to include the kinds of changes that are already taking place in our culture. For example, on yesterday’s news came the report of a huge storm in Southern California. Now, maybe what I heard was simply hyperbole when the announcer said, “This is the largest storm ever to hit Southern California.” Furthermore, the storm comes on the heels of a number of wildfires, so the possibility of mudslides is greatly increased.

Our present challenges don’t come only from “natural” happenings; although when we include hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, and tsunamis, there seems to be a lot of disaster around. From a year and a half to a year ago, the world economic systems experienced unprecedented strains and threatened to collapse. The news is also full of reports on the swine flu pandemic with frightening estimates of how many of our children are highly susceptible to it and may die. Less dramatic, but no less disturbing is the variety of cultural changes that affect churches and other religious organizations. Not too many years ago, the time for religion and family was built in to the calendar, and to be an active church member was a natural part of being a good citizen. Oh well.

I know that you could easily add to the list of present challenges, so I won’t say any more about those. For the purpose of this installment, it’s simply enough to conclude that life is not “going back to normal” any time soon. While we are able to take note of some of the things that are already happening, we can’t predict what other kinds of experiences are waiting to happen to us. So, the question that surfaces when we look at our world is something like this: Knowing that we are facing extraordinary, disorienting, and unpredictable events (added to our awareness that eventually we will all die), the question becomes, How then shall we live?

This question is as applicable to groups and institutions as it is to individuals. What must we learn about how to be the church today? What will we have to leave behind in order to carry on? How can we make the Gospel message pertinent to the challenges of the day?

Much of the content of our New Testament was written in the years right around the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. They address the anxiety that inevitably accompanies severe social upheaval. Those writings also teach us how to be a community based in God’s love and they point to the inevitable collapse of the Roman Empire. One could argue that the same conditions that eroded the foundations of the Roman Empire might be present today.

This blog is not about predictions, other than to say that things will change (and they are already changing in dramatic fashion). If we have our eyes open, we already have plenty of evidence. But, (and this is a significant but) – knowing this, How, then, shall we live?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
"Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn't."
The United Church__of Christ

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

2009-10-07T11:39:00.001-04:00

With so many people talking about environmental concerns, and with all the efforts being made to come up with new paradigms and new solutions to existing problems, I have been wondering about how some of the ancient wisdom might inform the conversation. For example, Jesus made some extraordinary statements, many of which have been difficult to understand. One significant statement that we might explore is this: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Does anyone ever take this seriously?

Of all the qualities that our culture encourages us to develop, meekness is surely not among them. Perhaps we do ourselves a disservice by misunderstanding the word, however. In our language, meekness means having no power or authority. So, we conclude that the meek are simply swept away by the powerful objectives of others.

As is so often the case, our translation lets us down, or at least misleads us. What if the word in the Bible that we translate as “meek,” actually means something else? The idea of gentleness or humbleness moves us in the right direction, but even those words don’t go far enough. As I think of Jesus words in the context of his overall teaching and ministry, I come up with some deeper, and frankly, more powerful meanings.

Think of it this way: What if Biblical “meekness” is the opposite of exploitation. Then we can translate the saying something like this:

Blessed are those who do not relate to other people or to their environment in an exploitive way.

Or to put it in positive terms:

Blessed are those who use their inherent power and authority to relate lovingly and cooperatively with those (including the environment) around them.

Currently, we are learning the painful lesson that if we relate to the earth in an exploitive manner, we eventually make it uninhabitable for us. But if we relate cooperatively with the natural world, then it continues to nurture us and we thrive together. One might say, we “inherit the earth.”

Of course, the word “inherit” needs to be understood in context also. We usually think of inheritance as something passed on to us that becomes our property. We become the owners of the estate, for example. That meaning is similar to the exploitation discussed above. We might think that because we own something, we have the right to exploit it in any way we choose. Although it turns out that we effectively kill ourselves when we exploit our environment.

But, our inheritance is not about receiving “the deed to the earth.” Our inheritance gives us the opportunity to relate to the natural world in a way that maintains the health of the world and that, in turn, maintains our health, as well.

Perhaps this is a valid perspective from which to evaluate the proposed drilling for gas in our area. Is this a case of exploiting the natural world? If so, how could we relate to it in a more cooperative, dare I say “meek” way?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

Is Religious Practice Good for You?

2009-09-30T08:04:00.000-04:00

I recently read a book called How God Changes Your Brain. Now before you start worrying that this is another of those dogmatic, but untested ideas about how necessary relationship with God is, let me assure you that this work comes from a highly reputable source, and while it has some startling conclusions, it is not a veiled attempt to manipulate or indoctrinate you into some kind of Christian Orthodoxy. This series of studies articulated in the book is a product of The Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania. It is co-authored by Andrew Newberg, MD, a physician who is the Director of the Center and Mark Robert Waldman, a therapist and lecturer who is an Associate Fellow of the Center.

According to their own research, and including their review of many other reputable studies, religious practice is not only good for the brain, but it is good for relationships and community, too. One interesting factor is that “God” or a particular image of God is not a necessary factor in creating the beneficial effects. For example, a broad range of meditation practices have been shown to be highly and rapidly beneficial to memory and general cognitive functioning. There is one qualification, though. If the focus of meditation does include an image of God, the nature of that image does matter. While the details of the particular image are inconsequential, whether the image is positive or negative matters a great deal. If a person meditates on the image of an angry, demanding, dangerous God, effects on the brain are negative. A positive, loving, forgiving image, however, results in very positive effects from meditative practice.

In short, the following eight practices enhance brain function (listed from least to most effective): Smiling, Intellectual Activity, Conscious Relaxation, Yawning (that’s right, Yawning!), Meditation, Aerobic Exercise, Dialogue with others, and (get this!) Faith.

This last practice is a bit surprising in the light of their assertion that the particular religious or theological formulation doesn’t matter. It comes to this. Being able to trust in your belief system is really good for you, even if you recognize that you can’t know for certain if it is true!

Does this mean, then, that beliefs shouldn’t be challenged? Should we all become conservative in our theological perspective? I don’t think so, and here is why.

A part of a healthy belief system is its ability to mature over time. So while we may not have to trust the ultimate accuracy of our belief systems, we must believe that those systems are the best we can have at the moment, and we trust (and this is the key) that growth and development is integral to our theology and to our faith/trust in it.

Getting back to the list for a moment, I encourage you to see how many of these activities are present in your life. I also ask you to consider if your religious community encourages these activities, or if for some reason, it ignores or even inhibits them.

Now, theoretically, all of these can be exercised without participation in a religious congregation. Still, speaking personally, I find that I need the support of like-minded others. No matter how useful or noble religious practices might be, I have a hard time staying engaged all by myself. Religious congregations don’t have to exist in order to promote these activities, but wouldn’t if be great if they did? What do you think?

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

The Church in Interesting Times

2009-09-23T14:24:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you articulate the identity of the church today?

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

When a Virus Comes to Church

2009-09-16T10:08:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But don’t forget to use your hand sanitizer.

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

Creating Sacred Space

2009-09-09T09:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Beauty – Touching the Divine

2009-09-02T10:40:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection – Thinking Theologically

2009-08-26T10:13:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worship – Experiencing God

2009-08-19T15:03:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorial Service Hiatus

2009-08-13T14:00:00.001-04:00

Hello Friends,

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

Wayne Gustafson

Justice – Engaging the Powers

2009-08-05T10:19:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

So what is a healthy liberal Christian to do?

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

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

but will we be so guided?

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

Time will tell.

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

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

On Vacation

2009-07-31T07:45:00.002-04:00

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

Diversity – Making Community

2009-07-22T11:14:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are you at bridgework?

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

Testimony – Talking the Walk

2009-07-15T15:51:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s your story?

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

Contemplation – Open for Prayer

2009-07-08T16:41:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Healing – Entering Shalom

2009-07-01T11:54:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s your understanding or experience of healing?

Wayne Gustafson

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

Discernment – Listening for Truth

2009-06-24T14:24:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Hospitality – Welcoming Strangers

2009-06-17T10:31:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embracing the Practices of Faith

2009-06-10T10:52:00.001-04:00

For the last year, I’ve been writing this blog with an eye towards seeing how liberal Christianity might understand a variety of issues from perspectives that are different from those of more conservative and/or fundamentalist Christian groups. At least a part of my intent is to acquaint the world with the perspectives of serious Christians who happen to have liberal and progressive views.

Sometimes I wonder if a congregation’s main task is simply to find like-minded people who might relate to a liberal church like this one. In the other hand, perhaps we need to discover what approaches to Christianity result in the discovery, development, and articulation of liberal/progressive views.

This past weekend, I attended the Annual Meeting of the New York Conference of the United Church of Christ. The keynote speaker was Diana Butler Bass, author of “Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith.” Perhaps some of you who are reading this blog were also in attendance. Dr. Bass wrote her book after a three-year research project about what thriving mainline liberal churches actually do. (I haven’t read the whole book yet, but I like what I am reading so far.) She discovered that when people in those churches engaged in simple practices like prayer, study, hospitality, and celebrating diversity, to name a few, that have always been associated with Christian communities, the congregations enjoyed increased success. The measure of success was not necessarily about budget and membership size. Rather, the measure of success was the resultant spiritual depth, commitment, and activity within the congregation. Such simple practices, performed with depth and commitment, do also tend to attract more people into the fellowship.

I like her recommended approach. It’s not fancy; it’s not manipulative. But it seems to respond to what people are hungry and thirsty for: a sense of deep belonging and ways to help life make more sense in a balanced way. Her approach recommends that we begin where we are and then expand as it seems appropriate. Most the practices she saw taking place in these “successful” congregations are simple but they are not gimmicks. What I mean is that the practices are simply what Christians have done historically. They are not designed as attempts to swell the ranks of the congregation, but because they are done with humility (that is to say, inviting all honest questioning) and because they connect the religious life with expressions of compassion and justice in the wider community, they often do have the effect of attracting more people.

Perhaps over the next few weeks I will write about some of the specific practices. For now, I invite you to celebrate the ways you already experience connection with the divine spirit, and I invite you to share what works for you.

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

The Church and Spiritual Growth

2009-06-03T11:24:00.001-04:00

I think a church (not the building, but the people) should be like an organic garden. It should provide the light of understanding, the nourishment of rich community soil, and it should provide the water of relationship and spirit that keeps the life flowing and the fruits growing. Where the metaphor breaks down is around the question of the nature of the fruits. A church is not filled with “plants” that must produce only one kind of fruit. As I wrote recently, the growth in a church is more like an experiment that assesses what is happening rather than a test to assess whether things are happening correctly.

I also think the church must be very creative in how it makes its resources available. Traditionally, the church was seen as a storehouse of resources and people had to come, usually on Sunday morning, in order to access those fruits. There were a few ancillary resources that people could generate on their own, like reading the Bible, prayer, and reading other recommended religious material, but attending the church was essential.

I must confess, as a minister I sometimes fall into the temptation to ask: “Why don’t people come to the church more?” But I realize that the pressing question facing the church today is more like, “How can we make our resources more readily available, and how can we encourage people to make use of them?”

If I didn’t believe that the church had something valuable to offer, I guess I wouldn’t bother to be a minister in one. But I do believe that Healthy Liberal Christianity has something very valuable to offer. So, I will continue to struggle with the second question. Hopefully, I won’t have to struggle alone. Hopefully, you will be willing to share your perspectives. I hope you will comment on the value (positive or negative) of the resources churches like this one have to offer. Hopefully, we can continue to co-create a spiritually nourishing community.

My fear about the effects of the present culture, at least in this country, is that there is so much pressure for people to use their financial resources to fill their lives with superficial activity and noise. I am all in favor of play, but I fear that many of today’s increasingly expensive “toys” actually inhibit play, imagination, relationship, and community. I think that we have to do better than that if we are to survive. And I believe that Healthy Liberal Christianity has much to offer (even if not in a church building, and even if not on Sunday Morning).

What do you think?

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

You Have to Come in by “The Door”

2009-05-28T08:12:00.001-04:00

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

Tests and Experiments

2009-05-20T11:50:00.001-04:00

I once had a saying posted on my office bulletin board that said:

“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

Living Faithfully in a Crazy World

2009-05-13T13:25:00.001-04:00

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

Does God Have a Name?

2009-05-06T09:41:00.001-04:00

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

The Liberal Mystic

2009-04-29T15:47:00.001-04:00

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

The First Christian Community

2009-04-23T08:38:00.001-04:00

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)

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

A Year of Blogs

2009-04-15T09:33:00.000-04:00

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

Is Holy Week an April Fools Day Joke? (Part 2 – Easter)

2009-04-08T10:03:00.001-04:00

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

Is Holy Week an April Fools Day Joke? (Part 1 – Palm Sunday)

2009-04-01T10:12:00.003-04:00

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.

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

The Priest and the Prophet

2009-03-25T07:34:00.000-04:00

During a conversation with the local Rabbi, I told her about a novel I had written about Moses. Well, it’s not exactly the characterization of Moses that you might expect, but it’s still about the same Biblical person. Moses has two sons. The Bible simply names them: Gershom and Eliezer. In my novel, Gershom, the elder, has been the “scribe” for Moses’ mystical experiences. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) Gershom likes to be precise and concrete. He doesn’t like to leave any possibility for the people to disobey Jehovah as a result of any misunderstanding of divine meaning. Because he’s such a good organizer, he’s been put in charge of the priests. Eliezer, the younger son, is more of a mystic like his esteemed father. He sees his own and Moses’ mystical experiences from a completely different perspective that causes him to question the kind of Promised Land they are about to inhabit. For Eliezer, the mystic, the journey to the Promised Land is not yet complete. You can see the inevitable tension that must rise up between the brothers. Well, enough about that. (If I am successful in getting some copies printed, I’ll let you know.)

Her comment to me was something like: Of course, Gershom is the priest and Eliezer the prophet and the novel is about the tension between the two.

For the sake of this blog installment, I want to consider the timeless tension between the Priest and the Prophet, particularly how it plays out in modern society and ministry. When people are ordained to ministry, they are typically called to be both priest and prophet. Is that even possible?

The purpose of the priestly function is to maintain order and tradition, and to mediate between the divine power and human vulnerability and need. Priests know the stories and their official meaning; they are competent in leading people through the rites and rituals; and they know how things “should” be done. They provide excellent pastoral care and they are expert at “comforting the afflicted.”

The purpose of the prophet is to listen to the “God that is still speaking” and communicate this apparently new divine message to people and institutions. Often what the prophet “hears” relates to the prevalence of injustice and hypocrisy. The divine message hurts on the inside if the prophet doesn’t proclaim it, and it is likely to hurt on the outside if the prophet does. While the priest is busy comforting the afflicted, the prophet is “afflicting the comfortable.”

Religious institutions are usually quite willing to pay for priestly functions, but they’re not so sure about the prophetic ones. Priests get hired; prophets get fired.

I am not implying that if people were “just” more faithful that the prophetic message would go down easier. Prophetic messages tend to be messy. They challenge what is generally accepted to be normal. They cause people to change very basic aspects of their lives with no guarantee of any desirable outcome, at least in the short run.

In Jesus’ prophetic call, he even indicates that if people listen to, and do, the will of God, they are likely to be persecuted, if not killed. I think he needs a new publicist – that message will never take!

While there is much in Christian theology and practice that is appropriately priestly and comforting, the other, more prophetic, side of the message can never be eradicated completely. The prophet still speaks to our hearts, calling us to avoid receiving comfort in ways that exclude or make life more difficult for others. The prophet calls us to exercise more compassion than judgment towards the disenfranchised while still calling systematically unjust institutions to account.

Jesus’ life and ministry did not reinforce the status quo. He saw the possibility for the Realm of God to become a reality in the present, and this prophetic vision motivated people to make radical changes in the way they lived.

As it always happens when we deal with something real, it doesn’t work to affirm just one side and vilify the other. Jesus was both the “shepherd for the sheep” and the courageous prophet who risked his very life when he stood up to the religious authorities and the full power of the Roman Empire.

If we follow Jesus honestly, we also are called to be both.

What do you think?

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

Religious Experience as Nostalgia

2009-03-18T15:27:00.001-04:00

I grew up in the church ensconced in a musical family. For me, music and worship have always gone together. I have believed for a lifetime that the addition of music to worship could only be a good thing. Lately I’ve realized that while religious music is still wonderful, like anything real it also has a down side.

Let me talk about the positive side first. For the most part (at least including the musical genres that I like) religious music makes me feel good. It finds its own way into my soul without necessarily stopping to visit the more cognitive parts of my brain. Music can even be transformative in ways that are healthy, though unpredictable. Music has maintained my connection with God at times when my thinking could not do the job. It has been very useful and enjoyable.

From the more negative side, religious music makes me feel good. Yes, I know I just said that was a positive element. How can it then be negative? The problem is that feeling good can turn into nostalgic numbness. It can turn the experience of worship into just another consumer event. If I like it, I’ll go, and if I don’t like it, I won’t.

I sometimes get nostalgic about certain events from my past and music can evoke that nostalgia. But I don’t think or see clearly, either about the past or the present, when nostalgia hits. I grew up singing hymns with certain lyrics, but I have discovered that some of those lyrics no longer reflect my present theology. If I’m feeling nostalgic, then I don’t even notice the friction. (By the way, while I’ve talked about music in particular, almost any aspect of past worship experience is capable of producing nostalgia.)

But I want my religious experience to be more than consumerism and nostalgia. I want to be challenged to think more broadly, even when that requires me to experience discomfort. From a larger perspective, I’m afraid that nostalgia is killing the church today. What was meaningfully nostalgic for one generation may drive the next away.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not fundamentally comfortable. It is certainly not designed to legitimize behaviors that are deemed acceptable in the worlds of government and business (although it is often used in just that way). While it’s good to have a warm sense of belonging in the Realm of the God of love, the larger purpose of that gospel is the propagation of loving relationships, not just in the personal realm, but across societies.

I suspect I will always love religious music, but, please, God, don’t let me settle for nostalgia.

What do you think?

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

Was Jesus a Socialist?

2009-03-11T11:52:00.001-04:00

During the presidential election season and even more as the economic stimulus bills wend their way through the legislative process, many of President Obama’s adversaries have been accusing him of spreading “socialism.” This raises several questions for me:
1. Is the charge accurate?
2. What is socialism and why is it such a threat?
3. Was Jesus a socialist? And
4. From the perspective of Healthy Liberal Christianity how much influence on our economic system do we want Jesus’ teachings to have?

We have to begin with definitions. Socialism usually is understood according to two related definitions: it is an economic system in which the state owns everything and makes decisions about distribution of wealth, and/or it promulgates the value of a more equitable distribution of wealth in a society. We could launch into a detailed discussion about the technicalities of socialism, but that probably wouldn’t do us much good. It might help, though, to add the definition of capitalism, our economic system, as a system of private (and corporate) owners who are in competition with one another in a free market.

So what might Jesus have to say about these economic systems? Jesus stood in the tradition of the ancient prophets of Israel who periodically railed against the economic and political “domination systems” of their day.
(According to Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan in “The Last Week,” domination systems have three characteristics: They include political oppression, economic exploitation, and religious legitimation of the first two characteristics.)
Jesus didn’t talk about economic systems directly, but he certainly lifted up the all too present realities of poverty and hunger in a way that could be taken as an indictment of the existing system, but his point was probably not about the replacement of one economic system with another.

He does refer to some of the consequences of too much reliance on material things and on earthly power. He noted that it was exceedingly difficult for people to participate in the Realm of God if they were rich. In another place, he noted that the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God was a false distinction. For Jesus, all belonged to God. When he spoke about the characteristics of the Realm of God, he did not use economic or political terms. He used the language of love. In other words, social policy was to be based on people mattering to each other, not on competition (where the devil necessarily takes the hindmost).

As long as we try to determine the best economic system, we are missing the point. Healthy community is based on people caring about each other so that needs are met. It is never about the ability to become wealthier than someone else. Jesus makes it clear that people and relationships are more important than empire or the accumulation of wealth.

It is interesting to me that the defenders of capitalism argue that the opportunity to create more wealth is the only real motivation for creativity, productivity, and progress in a culture. Jesus and the prophets make it clear that such social/economic systems will always collapse eventually under rampant greed. Said differently, economic systems that are solely based on the amassing or distribution of wealth are not sustainable, particularly to the degree that they are “systems of domination,” whether by the state over the people or the wealthy over the poor matters not. Is it not possible that creativity is its own motivation to create healthier social structures?

We could argue that some socialistic principles might be more consistent with Jesus’ message, but that does not make Jesus’ message socialistic. The character of economic systems is largely determined by locating the source of the power to make people comply. Whether that power comes from the state or from market “forces” doesn’t matter – both are domination systems that have oppression as their central feature.

So that my writing today does not become simply an unrealistic, utopian dream, we must ask one final question. What are the practical means we can use to teach ourselves, our neighbors, and our children to love? If we are to promote the Realm of God, we must struggle with that question above all others. I think that is the challenge facing the church today. I believe that alongside our human capacity to compete, we also carry the human (or even divine) capacity to care. Let’s work to bring it out.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
God is still speaking!
The United Church___of Christ

A Non-Anxious Presence

2009-03-04T11:46:00.000-05:00

Anxiety is at epidemic proportions in our culture. There are lots of legitimate reasons to feel anxious: finances, insecurity about work, family issues, addictions, and a desire to belong, to name only a few. And people employ many approaches in their attempts to manage anxiety. In many ways our economic, political and religious climates actually promote anxiety: “You should be afraid and anxious, but come to me and I’ll take care of you – for a price, of course.”

We might say that our culture has bought into the Madison Avenue approach: there must be something that you can consume, something that comes from outside of yourself, (and I have it for sale), to make your situation better, or in religious language, to save you. The consistent problem with all of these approaches is that the “cure” costs so much in payment and dependency that you end up even more anxious than when you began. There is also an implied disclaimer in these “helpful products.” If you don’t get help from this, then there must be something fundamentally inadequate about you. (and by the way, I have something to sell you that will fix that problem, too.)

How have we come to place where every intervention increases rather than decreases anxiety? I think much of the problem is with some of our largely unexamined “core beliefs,” those beliefs that are so embedded in our understanding that it doesn’t occur to us to question them. Many of those “core beliefs” are summed up in the work of Rabbi (Family Therapist and Pastoral Counselor) Edwin Friedman,

Before his untimely death, Friedman was an eloquent spokesperson for a radically different way of being in the world. He talked about three temptations that separate a human being from a god, noting that we end up creating even deeper anxiety when we violate any of these. The three temptations are in the realms of knowledge, power, and death (God’s are considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal). Whenever we believe that we should be able to be all knowing, all powerful, or eternal, we sow the seeds for our own demise, and of the resultant anxiety. Many of us violate all three of these at once when we believe that given enough knowledge, power, and time, we should be able to fix anything.

The most dangerous “core belief” is tied up in the word “should.” If we believe that the world “should” work in a particular way, we delude ourselves. The “purveyors of essential knowledge” make lots of profit on these “shoulds.” If we have the right dietary knowledge, we’re led to believe that we can live longer. If we have the right parenting techniques, we will generate successful children. If we have the right car, clothing, perfume and deodorant, we will have a successful romantic life. If we have the right theology, then God will take care of us. The list is endless, and our urge to consume all these “right” answers is insatiable.

Eventually, we may discover that life is too complex and varied to “make sense” in the way we think it “should.” Apparently, life is fundamentally ambiguous; that is to say, incomplete pieces of the truth can be discovered on all sides of reality, even when those pieces appear to contradict one another.

Friedman goes on to identify one of the prime characteristics of maturity as the ability to remain non-anxious in the midst of an anxiety-laden system. He reminds us that we all grow up in systems (families) that probably contain more anxiety than necessary and we learn characteristic methods to try to reduce the anxiety. But because those approaches are predicated on false “core beliefs” about what is possible and healthy, they don’t work. Still, we tend to get more anxious believing that they “should” work.

So, is there a way to move from high anxiety to low anxiety – to be a less-anxious presence? Friedman addresses this question by identifying some more realistic core beliefs. For example, he believed that the primary goal in life is to become a mature self who is capable of entering into relationships without being in a perpetually reactive state. When productivity or perfection becomes the goal instead, anxiety naturally increases.

Another factor Friedman identifies has to do with whether you are doing your own “work” of individuation or if you are using your attempts to fix or save other people as a way to validate yourself. One of the unambiguous realities of life is that you can only do your own work. You can be in relationships – in fact that is preferred – but you just can’t take credit for the success or failure of anyone else.

One final thought – reactivity that is born of fear and anxiety is always destructive. So, it can be seen as an act of love to learn a less anxious way of being.

Jesus said, “God loves and accepts you, so don’t be afraid or anxious.” He might have said, you can’t earn your way into heaven, God has already prepared a place for you (whatever that means).

Finally, when it seems that nothing else is possible to ameliorate the situation, you can always breathe, remembering that the words for breath and spirit are the same in many languages.

Be not afraid – and love.

What do you think?

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

Should Church Weddings have Legal Authority?

2009-02-25T07:59:00.000-05:00

I begin by confessing that I am a latecomer to this interesting topic, but because it is increasingly being discussed in the public arena, I thought it might be useful to look at from the perspective of Healthy Liberal Christianity. The basic argument includes two very different questions. The first has to do with the right of the government to put any of its own restrictions on the institution marriage whose creation has been based in primarily religious sentiments. The second question has to do with the right of a religion to sanction what turns out to be largely an economic and civil relationship.

There are some clergy who have recently made the decision no longer to act as agents of the state. They argue that a civil relationship is essentially a legal issue, and that the religious sanction of a marriage has a completely different purpose. They point to the widespread practice in Europe of having all marriages be granted by civil law, after which those people who wish it can have the marriage sanctified by an appropriate ritual in their own religious tradition.

Some would argue that such a separation is unnecessary because the state simply recognizes those marriages that clergy have blessed as well as recognizing marriages that take place before a Justice of the Peace – well, except for those relationships that a church might sanction but the state would not – same gender marriages in most places, for example. An opposite problem is created when the state sanctions a kind of marriage that violates the conscience of the minister. If the minister is operating as an agent of the state, should the minister then be required to marry all people who wish it?

I have long been a proponent of reading the First Amendment very carefully. I have argued before that both the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” have validity, and can be best understood when we remember that government and religion usually have very different purposes. Still, in cases like marriage, there seems to be some overlap in purposes, inviting a spirited and mutually useful conversation between government and religion. For example, is it appropriate for the state to place limits on the legal age for marriage, or on bigamy, for that matter. Similarly, on what grounds might religion appropriately restrict the practice of marriage laws in the church?

These are complex questions that have many legitimate, though apparently contradictory answers. As I see it, the question is not about who is right. The question has to do with both sides working to clarify how far their appropriate sphere of influence extends and to clarify their respective core purposes.

Where I end up on this question from the perspective of Healthy Liberal Christianity is that government and the gospel are really not about the same thing at all, even though there is often a large measure of compatibility. With regard to marriage, the gospel addresses commitment and mutual respect in the relationship and invites people to affirm the presence of God in their midst. The government addresses the rules of property and obligations to care for offspring. Some religious perspectives try to speak for “what God wants.” They argue that God instituted the “one man, one woman model” for marriage and that if we violate that, we are going against God. Healthy Liberal Christianity takes the position that Jesus gave us the model of the Realm of God, not as a hierarchical system of dominance, but as a way of organizing ourselves around the law of love.

My point here is that we cannot even begin to address the question of marriage until we determine where our foundations of faith are. How marriage should be viewed either by government or religion is not about our personal opinions of the matter nor is it about our opinion of “what God wants.” Workable systems can only come from the deep and respectful sharing of thoughtful perspectives on the subject.

I invite you to think about these things and to weigh in to the conversation. For the time being, I will probably continue to sign marriage licenses, but the notion of leaving civil relationships to the government and then taking more responsibility as a minister for supporting commitment and spiritually-based healthy relationships appeals to me.

What do you think?

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

What Gives Life Meaning?

2009-02-18T11:42:00.001-05:00

When I’m not working as the Interim Minister of The Park Church, I am a Pastoral Counselor, providing pastoral psychotherapy through the Susquehanna Family Counseling Ministry. Often people come to counseling during transitional periods in their lives when they find themselves dealing with family changes (marriage, birth of a child, a newly “empty nest”, divorce, or the death of a loved one) or life changes (going to school, graduating, beginning a career, retiring, dealing with physiological changes like aging or being wounded). Inevitably we get around to talking about some of the fundamental elements of life – that is to say, those values, beliefs, or resources that inform their decisions and affect the quality of their experiences, at least in the short term. Sometimes we talk about what gives life its meaning: the reasons that it’s worth getting up in the morning, for example. Many people have been taught that they should look for meaning in their career, or role in the family, or by the amount of money they can make. In my experience, sometimes these approaches work and sometimes they don’t. So, many years ago I began looking at a deeper level for those characteristics that affect the degree to which we experience meaning in life.

After more than 35 years of listening to people, both as a minister and as a pastoral counselor, I have distilled hundreds of answers to the “meaning question” into three broad characteristics.

The first characteristic is that people want and need opportunities to be creative. We could talk about this theologically and affirm that we are all created with the capacity to be creative. People tell me that they become more meaningfully engaged with life when they can exercise creativity. Sadly, in our consumerist and spectator culture, creativity is too often associated with professional visual or performing artists. Sadly, many people today don’t know that their creativity is natural and that they need to be creative in order to be healthy. One’s creativity can be expressed in thousands of ways that need not make money or garner public affirmation. People can write letters, doodle in margins, cook attractive and tasty meals, whittle sticks, write poetry, take photographs, make clothing, or plant flowers, to name only a few. They can also engage in some of the more traditional artistic pursuits – like painting, singing, or dancing. If you’re interested in a book that addresses this issue, try “The Artist’s Way”, by Julia Cameron or go to her website at http://www.theartistsway.com/
By the way, there are all sorts of ways to be creative in worship, too.

The second characteristic of a meaningful life is the ability to appreciate beauty. This one has two parts: are there expressions of beauty around you, and if so, do you recognize and value them. Sometimes, how much money you have can determine how much beauty you can have around you, although, what people do with their money does not always make one’s surroundings more beautiful at all. So we may have identified a social justice issue. If you’re forced to live next to the town landfill, the beauty surrounding you may be limited. But the greater issue for a meaningful life is the inner capacity to notice the beauty in whatever is around you. If you think that creation, for example, is fundamentally good, then you will expect to find much beauty there. If, on the other hand, you think that creation is just a jungle where survival is the only value, then what is beautiful will be ignored at best, and seen to be a distraction from survival, at worst. You may have already made the connection that the products of creativity in one person might be the source of the beauty that is apprehended by another. We all probably need to be reminded from time to time, to open our senses to the beauty around us. I might add that one of the purposes of liturgy, sacred space, and music in worship is to provide opportunity to appreciate beauty.

The third characteristic of a meaningful life is both specific and general. It is one’s experience of being in relationship. The specific perspective might have to do with being in relationships with other human beings, whether in a family, or romantically, or working together on a creative project. The more general perspective is a broad sense of being connected to life. Too often, religion has taught people not to see what they have in common with other people who appear to be “different.” Religion has also taught people not to see their connection to the planetary environment, and instead to see it as an enemy to be dominated. Still, it appears that we are created with a capacity and a need to be in relationship, and we experience more meaning in our lives when we relate.

I would hope that Healthy Liberal Christianity would promote all of these characteristics. Jesus said, “I came that you might have life, and have it abundantly.” I’d choose to believe that he was referring to abundance of meaning in life.

Perhaps you have different ways of answering the question about what gives life meaning. Let’s hear about them.

Wayne Gustafson

“God is still speaking”… through creativity, beauty, and relationship.
The United Church__of Christ

Can Liberal Christians Take the Bible Seriously?

2009-02-11T14:08:00.001-05:00

I came to the conclusion a few years ago that the danger of conservative religion is its potential to be abusive, while the danger in liberal religion is its potential to be neglectful. Psychology tells us that both are damaging, and in very similar ways, interestingly enough. It’s also true that it is usually easier to be aware of the deficiencies in the opposing side, and much more difficult to look at the shortcomings of one’s own position. Too many religious discussions devolve into ineffective mutual criticism that results in little or no healing or growth.

Before I ask you to consider the implications of my observation, let me define my terms. I use a very general definition of abuse: whenever a person is treated as an object. Neglect is a bit more difficult to define, but perhaps it is the failure to provide the resources and structures necessary for healthy growth and development.

Because it is so easy (and, of course, useless) to criticize “the other side”, I will try to confine my remarks to the nature of liberal neglect and try to offer some healing possibilities. When liberals react to the perceived foundation of conservative religion, namely, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, they tend to go to the other extreme, believing that any structures of containment on children creates harmful suffering in the child. To give an example from religious life, conservative religion practically insists on blind obedience to the strictures of the church: you will attend worship, learn your Bible, tithe, and spend regular times in prayer, and have a “personal relationship with Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or else. (I won’t include a list of the obvious “don’ts” that go along with the above.) In reaction to what liberals perceive as threat-based religion, activities like worship, study of the Bible and Christian theology, “sacrificial” giving, and the personalized characteristics of relationship with God become optional and practically unnecessary.

Another way liberal neglect happens is that when liberals reject the concrete thinking and images they perceive in conservative religion, too often they simply cease their theological inquiry. Many of the books written these days that vilify religion have defined all religion in the narrowest (and most concrete) of terms. They never consider the power and legitimacy of the serious study of liberal theology. And part of that phenomenon is the fault of us liberals!

As a minister, it is very sad to me that when people face the crises of life and attempt to find comfort and meaning through religion, too often their available theological ideas turn out to be those of a 10 year old. So many of us learned the basic Biblical stories in childhood, but then never took the next step of developing an adult context for what we had learned. That leaves us with only two choices: Accept the truth of our immature understanding, or reject faith in God entirely. Actually, there is a third option often popular in liberal churches: ignore theology entirely and commit to promoting social justice instead.

I think it is very important for us to excavate the foundations of Christian theology – to find a way to understand our faith so that it can nourish our growth, our communities of faith, and can promote our ministry and mission. We also need to have a mature understanding of faith whenever we face the losses, challenges, and crises of life.

So the real question is not whether we can take the Bible seriously. The real question is how we understand and use it. So I encourage liberal Christians to read the Bible, ask for help in finding a context to understand it, and then participate in the unavoidable personal and social transformation that Jesus advocates.

It is in this spirit that I will be leading a Lenten study based in the book, “The Last Week”, by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Attending the class and/or reading the book will likely enrich your Holy Week experience.

That’s my position. What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

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

The Strife is O’er

2009-02-03T12:24:00.002-05:00

My mother’s earthly journey ended at 11:00 pm, Thursday Night, January 29, 2009. I had left the hospital at about 9:00 pm, so when my sister-in-law called right after 11:00 pm, my wife, son, and I returned. I needed to see her “at rest.” Even though we’re pretty sure that she had not been consciously aware for about five days, her body put up an impressive battle hanging on to life longer than any of us thought possible. Right after her death, one of my first feelings was relief, for her and for us, but it didn’t take long to become aware of the huge hole that she left behind. That hole was temporarily filled by the myriad details that faced us beginning Friday. We wrote the obituary, worked out final details with the funeral home, and then planned her memorial service with the Priest and organist at the Episcopal Church where she had found a spiritual/musical home here in Kalamazoo. And of course, we’ve been dealing with clearing out and cleaning out her apartment.

The memorial service was Monday. My brother and I both felt it was “perfect.” Not only was the music and liturgy objectively wonderful, but the inner experience was just right, too. I rode on a wave of deep feeling throughout the service. It’s hard to identify just what the feelings were underneath the copious tears. I know some of it was sadness and some of it was nostalgia for the many musical and worship experiences shared with her over many years. Some of it was a deep sense of the sacred that expressed a deep “knowing” of our spiritual and ongoing connectedness. Frankly, some of the tears came from the pure beauty of it all. The service concluded with Bach’s “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.” All I could think was. “Take that, Mom. That’ll send you on your way in style.” If you don’t know that one, it’s worth listening to sometime.

As a “liberal theologian,” I sometimes struggle with religious language that seems too concrete, too gender specific, or too sin/guilt oriented. I realized during the memorial service that the underlying spiritual experience was undeniably “real”, and that any words, music, or ritual would always be inadequate to express it fully. Still, the combination of music, carefully chosen scripture, participation of my son and niece, the Eucharistic celebration, and Rev. Beth’s well chosen words came pretty close to fullness. The limitations of any of those didn’t matter. The total experience worked and I am changed by it.

We’ll be traveling Wednesday (2/3) and will soon be getting back into the routine. But I have received several meaningful gifts of understanding as a result of going through the events of the last couple of weeks. My experience reinforces my long held belief in the validity of every individual’s unique experience. My brother reminded me of the bumper sticker that says, “Don’t believe everything you think!” Experience often creates opportunity for us to broaden our ways of thinking. I now have more first-hand knowledge of the “reality” that words, beliefs, and rituals attempt to express.

As a family, we have received comfort, but we also have been challenged by Mom’s example. She always worked to improve her “gifts” to share with the world and she lived with intensity to the end. I hope always to do the same.

You can find my mother’s obituary at:
http://www.legacy.com/Kalamazoo/DeathNotices.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=123560632

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

I Have Some Feelings as I Accompany My Mother's Dying Process

2009-01-28T21:14:00.000-05:00

Well, who would have thought that I’d be writing this blog while my mother still hangs on to life? If you’d told me that we’d still be dealing with this, I certainly wouldn’t have believed it. Among other things, this experience has reminded (and continues to remind) me about how little I can control in life, particularly when we’re talking about anyone else’s life but mine. It also reminds me that my experiences only qualify me to have more compassion towards others, not to become more judgmental about them.

I have been through a wide range of emotions in the last week and a half, and it’s not done yet. Some of them I have expected: sadness, loss, some fear as I contemplate my own morality, and even a hint of gratitude that my mother is not suffering in her last days. But then there are the unexpected and uncomfortable feelings (and I include these because I suspect that all people who go through difficult or trying times will experience some feelings that they don’t want or that they believe are inappropriate to the situation.): frustration that the process is dragging out in a way that doesn’t seem useful for anyone, anger that I have to put aside important things in my own life to accommodate her, exhaustion and boredom at sitting around waiting for something to happen,; and all of this is sometimes covered over with a kind of “gallows humor.” Some things are incredibly funny in the face of death and mortality – go figure!

I know that there will be more feelings that will emerge after Mom dies, but I’m learning that I can’t predict with any certainty which emotions I will have, and how they will manifest in me. Healthy Liberal Christianity does not exclude any of these feelings. It simply gives me a framework out of which to understand, and if not understand, at least to embrace my emotional experiences. Sometimes people believe that if they have enough faith, they will be able to avoid some of those unexpected and uncomfortable feelings. Sometimes people try to be helpful to one another by telling them “Don’t feel that way.” What is intended as support often comes across as a judgment: “If you were really a person of faith, you wouldn’t feel like that!” That kind of judgment can be aimed at oneself as well.

My hope throughout is that I can be authentic and not discredit whatever is true on the inside. My further hope is that I can support the authentic experiences of others, too. Jesus said that he came so that we could have life, and have it abundantly. Being able to experience all of your feelings without guilt or shame is part of that abundance.

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

Life’s Final Earthly Chapter for My Mother (still being written)

2009-01-21T19:03:00.001-05:00

Well, it’s Wednesday and I’m sitting in a hospital room in Kalamazoo, Michigan where my mother is nearing the end of her almost 89 years of life. Let me say first of all, that being in this situation as a son is entirely different than any of the times I’ve been “here” as a minister. Still, Healthy Liberal Christianity is not of much value if it is not useful at times like these.

So please indulge me as I reflect on this particular son’s experience.

I’ve been washed over with waves of amazement that this little woman lying in a hospital bed, having lost the power of most movement and speech, actually brought my brother and me into this world. What a miracle! I call it a miracle even though such things happen all the time. I’ve also been celebrating how many people she touched in her life with her musical talent. She retired from her career as a church organist and choir director less than four years ago – when she turned 85! She was a talented musician, but in my estimation, her greatest gift was her ability to help small, untrained choirs – adults and children alike – to sing beautifully. She created participants in music, not spectators. This, too, is miraculous.

I’m reminded that life doesn’t have to be the result of some supernatural intervention to be totally miraculous. Life itself is miraculous. It is a miracle that we are here, that she and I share memories that span more than sixty-two years, that she had a life, a purpose, relationships, talents, and meaningful experiences before I even existed.
(Just in case you’re thinking that I’m making this experience be all about me, well, I am because I can’t do anything else. You see, I actually don’t have direct knowledge of anyone else’s experience beyond what they tell me. And, besides, this is my blog, after all!)

As I see it, it’s a miracle to learn that life is not just about me. I’m not even the main character. While that statement may seem like just another example of how I have “a firm grasp on the obvious,” remember that we all have a front row seat only for our own life experience, so I cannot assume that anyone else experiences life exactly the way I do. I believe this humble statement to be one of the foundational elements of any “liberal” perspective: that I am neither qualified nor authorized to assume understanding of the experiences of others. And, therefore, I am in no position to judge the validity or “righteousness” of someone else’s experience. I can walk with them, learn from them, and perhaps help them find a way to talk about their unique experience, but that’s about as far as I can go.

Back to where I am today. I spent last night with my brother and niece in Mom’s hospital room listening to her breathing. I would doze off and then awaken abruptly when the sound would change. I have been hoping and praying that her death would come quickly, but I am reminded for the gazillionth time that birth, life, and death tend to have their own timing, and I have no right to demand that things happen for my convenience.

I can see that she is getting ready. She has always held onto life with astounding tenacity. She’s a fighter, and this sacred ending of her life will be no different. She will do it her way as much as she can. Still, it brings up all kinds of strange feelings in me when I pray for her death to be quick and easy and at the same time wanting to honor how much she has always valued life. I get it that she needs to do it her way and according to her own timing.

Tender moments are happening frequently during this vigil. This afternoon, I returned from a much needed nap at my brother’s house to find the whole family in tears. My niece had just said “good-bye” to her grandmother and was about to return to her home because she has to work tomorrow. Everyone in the room was moved by the beauty of the moment. We are all truly part of one another’s experience here.

A short time ago, I read a couple of Psalms to Mom (with quaky voice and eyes blurred with tears). It’s always meaningful when I read Psalm 23 or 139 in worship or at someone’s funeral, but let me tell you, when you read those words to your dying mother, they take on a totally new depth of meaning. Every time I recite those Psalms in the future, I will remember this moment.

Everything is sacred about this time here in the hospital: the tears, the hugs, the incredible eye contact my mother is able to have with us from time to time, the uneasy naps, the hospital food, the knowing glances that pass between family members, and the many ways that we support my mother and one another.

You may be wondering what all this has to do with Healthy Liberal Christianity. First of all, openness to the unique paths and experiences of the individual is normative for this “healthy” brand of religion. It is not necessary to force people into using particular words or symbols to talk about their spiritual experiences. Life experiences are more like experiments than tests. When we listen deeply and respectfully to one other, we all have improved opportunity to deepen our own spiritual lives and understanding. This is good in and of itself.

But what about the “Christian” part? I believe that Liberal Christianity listens carefully to Jesus and puts his words into the context of his life and ministry. He taught us not to worry about our acceptability to God. Rather, we can be encouraged by that incomprehensible Love to face life’s challenges and to live lives of compassion that are not restricted by unnecessary anxiety.

My mother has been anxious a lot in her life, and I understand where a lot of that has emanated from. But, as I watch her sink into the end stages of life, preparing to embrace death, my faith in eternal Love is bolstered.

I pray not only that her passing can be untroubled, but that I can learn from her example. I’ll need it someday when my own transition comes.

Thanks in advance for your prayers,

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

The Dynamics of Extremism

2009-01-14T13:32:00.003-05:00

In my humble opinion, extremism is one of the most pernicious forces in humanity’s journey on this planet. Extremism fuels all forms of social discrimination, fear, hatred, terrorism, and, of course, war. Somehow it’s not effective simply to tell people to stop taking such extreme positions. I think that most extremists truly believe that they are right and anyone who disagrees with their (extreme) position is wrong. Nowhere is extremism more prevalent (and in my opinion, destructive) than in the realm of church and religion. Because we are about to begin the celebration of The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (January 18 – 25), it seemed appropriate to consider if Healthy Liberal Christianity might be able to shed some light on the problem of extremism.

Let’s begin by examining some of the characteristics of extremism. A quick internet search brought me to an article called Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits (click on the link to see the full article). He began his article with this quotation from Robert F. Kennedy:

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

I have selected some of the characteristics Mr. Wilcox enumerates, particularly those that relate more to belief systems than behaviors. If you’re interested, go to the above link for the rest of the list and for his explanations. Remember that these characteristics apply to all extremists, not just to the side that opposes yours.

6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil.
7. Manichaean worldview [all/nothing or right/wrong thinking].
9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them.
13. Doomsday thinking.
14. Belief that it's okay to do bad things in the service of a "good" cause.
16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance.
17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions.
18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty.
21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win.

None of these beliefs promote relationship, communication, or community. In fact, they serve to make people so suspicious of one another that trust and cooperation become impossible. In short, they generate fear and reactivity. Before we get too self righteous, let’s remember that some forms of liberal religion can be just as intolerant as the groups they oppose. Healthy Liberal Christianity, however, emphasizes not just tolerance, but active inquiry into how other people have come to hold their particular beliefs. An attitude of tolerance, at best, only serves to create space for people to “agree to disagree.” Tolerance by itself, however, does not promote loving curiosity, respect, or understanding, qualities that are necessary in any healthy community, or to use Jesus’ term, the Realm of God.

When I lived in Seattle a number of years ago, I heard a public service announcement on the radio: “In Seattle, we don’t tolerate diversity, we celebrate it!” That attitude goes in the right direction as far as I am concerned. It seems consistent with Jesus’ mandate to us that we “love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.” This is not easy, to be sure, but it appears that Jesus thought it a necessary element in the Realm of God.

In my opinion, (and this is not an original thought) there are two primary motivations for human behavior: fear and love. Fear leads to extremism, while love leads to community. If you tell an extremist that he or she is wrong, their level of fear is likely to increase. So, the only way to engage extremism with any real hope of success is to ground your response in love. That’s what Jesus taught, and that must be the heart and soul of Healthy Liberal Christianity if we wish to promote the Realm of God on Earth.

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

Jesus Presents his Political Platform

2009-01-07T17:21:00.001-05:00

I remember a time near the beginning of my ministry, when I thought I was supposed to take the gospel accounts seriously and practically. It seemed to my young and inexperienced mind that if we were to be followers of Jesus, what he had to say should have some impact on the ways we structured society and on the ways we did “business.” Everyone told me how impractical, immature, and idealistic I was. One person even said, “That was a very interesting sermon, Pastor, but you’ll know better when you grow up!”

I have grown up! And I still believe that the Christian Gospel speaks loudly to present conditions, perhaps even more than to eternal rewards or punishments for individual souls.

For a time, it seemed that the liberal wings of American Christianity held the torch for the value of human social and economic conditions. The “Social Gospel” movement early in the 20th Century, championed by Baptist reformer, Walter Rauschenbusch, is the classic example. In recent years, through the work of people like Jim Wallis at Sojourners, for example, there is now emerging a new convergence of liberal and evangelical Christian positions around the practicality of gospel mandates for modern social and economic structures. I think this is very good news.

We have just completed a presidential election campaign and are about to inaugurate Barack Obama to this high office. The news is filled with economic stimulus plans and ideas to shore up the economic well-being of those segments of society that have been losing ground over the last thirty or so years. If we look to the teachings and living examples of Jesus as reported in the New Testament, we discover that he seemed to be more interested in “quality of life” for everyone than he was in simply improving the “standard of living” for the poor. This is a significant distinction. Standard of living has to do with money and the ability to be a consumer of goods and services. (We’ve even been told that the health of the economy depends on consumption.) Standard of living is not unimportant, particularly when there is a great disparity between rich and poor. The “Achilles heel” of Standard of living, however, as the primary measure of well-being is largely dependent on determining how much better off one is than others in the community. You can’t have winners without losers. From the discipline of psychotherapy I have learned that whenever there are winners and losers, relationships inevitably suffer. (I will make an exception for some competitive games where there is very little at risk.) But when one is competing for one’s very livelihood, there is an enormous amount on the line.

Quality of life is quite a different matter. Quality of life is fundamentally relational and it stands at the heart of Jesus’ life and ministry. I have argued in many ways (in blogs, sermons, etc.) that the establishment of “The Realm of God” was Jesus’ primary objective. Those who were only concerned for their own well-being, either in this world or the next, missed the point and therefore missed out. Loving one’s neighbor (and enemy for that matter), challenging social structures that keep the rich even richer and the poor even poorer, being respectful in marriage, avoiding judgments about others (probably because such judgments create the exact situation of winners and losers mentioned above), and trusting that generosity creates relational wealth, not poverty is how the “Realm of God” on Earth must work.

So I guess that Jesus’ stimulus plan could be summed up in a few words from his Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew 6:

No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear?” For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.

I still try to take this seriously, no matter how difficult it is to live out in modern culture. But, do you think that Jesus could get elected today on that political platform?

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

Does Liberal Theology Destroy Christmas?

2008-12-24T10:32:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

“For Unto you a child is born…”

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

Wayne Gustafson

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

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

2008-12-17T17:09:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

“No matter who you are, or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here!”

The United Church___of Christ

Religious Holiday Displays in a Pluralistic Culture

2008-12-10T09:43:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Pro-life looks at War

2008-12-03T08:18:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Healthy Liberal Christianity Looks at Spiritual Discipline

2008-11-26T10:59:00.000-05:00

An old friend of mine, an Episcopal Priest, used to tease me by telling me that I was a minister in “the loose church.” Within Episcopal circles, congregations are categorized by how “high church” or “low church” they are in their worship, but he saw the United Church of Christ (UCC) as being so far off the “low” end of the scale that it must be “loose.” I’m not going to discuss the differences between high and low churches because my point here is about the reputation, implied in his teasing of me, that many if not most liberal churches have no real structure to their worship or theology – that we can do anything in worship and that we can believe anything we want.

It may be that liberal congregations have earned some measure of this reputation, but in my experience the reputation is misleading. Sometimes people tease members of UCC churches by saying that UCC actually means “Unitarians Considering Christ”. Again, while there may be some cause for that characterization, it is not true that “liberal” necessarily means sloppy, frivolous, unchristian, or ungrounded in scripture or tradition.

In any developmental process, the pendulum always swings. Some of the behavior of the liberal church has been a reaction to overly judgmental and strict forms of Christianity. Whether it was inevitable or not, the move to the left in liberal Christianity has begun to expose a different take on the “Jesus message” (or The Good news, if you prefer). Many of us grew up believing that an ongoing relationship with God required “being good”, or if we couldn’t be good, then we at least had to make a proper confession and be forgiven. It was a highly individualized message. As we have peeled away the layers of Christological interpretation, we have discovered in Jesus’ life and teachings a much more challenging message – that the Realm of God comes into being by means of our relationships and by means of how we structure our communities.

Jesus behaved in a way that challenged the injustice of Roman domination and challenged the capitulation to Roman power by the powerful temple leadership. His challenging behavior resulted in his crucifixion. While he certainly invited people into deep spiritual relationship, he demonstrated that one’s religious life could not be walled off from public behavior.

Now, you might be wondering why I have called this blog installment “Healthy Liberal Christianity Looks at Spiritual Discipline.” What I have written already doesn’t sound like spiritual discipline. Some people think that spiritual discipline can only be a private, meditative matter. I am suggesting that spiritual discipline is, in fact, necessary so that we can act with integrity in the world. It does take some careful study of scripture and tradition to ground our behavior in solid spiritual principles. It does take some internal effort to dig through the interpretations that others have put forth as the only way to see Christian Theology. It takes work to follow Jesus, particularly when he reminds us, “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Our liberal spirituality is not about believing whatever we think is convenient. Our spirituality is based in taking Jesus very seriously, indeed. It is based in listening with all the courage we can muster, and as deeply as we can listen. Ultimately, it is based in finding ways to act publicly. All the while, our spiritual discipline reminds us that we do not have to go it alone. Jesus says: “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them.” I don’t believe this last affirmation applies only to gatherings for prayer or worship. It also applies to our public actions.

Jesus doesn’t say that he has lived and died to take our personal and corporate responsibility away from us. Rather, he calls us to follow. Spirituality that does not result in “following” is largely useless. And “following” that is not grounded in spirituality cannot be sustained.

What do you think?

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

Does Healthy Liberal Christianity Need a Sabbath?

2008-11-20T12:06:00.000-05:00

While on vacation, I got thinking about the idea of Sabbath. At the beginning of Genesis, after God has finished with creation, God rests. Later in the Ten Commandments, the Israelites were told to “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” While Sabbath continues to be kept by modern Jews and by seventh Day Adventists, liberal Christianity has not had much to say about it. At best, the notion of Sabbath in American Protestantism has been conflated with the importance of the “worship day.”

It could be useful for us to take Sabbath more seriously. Of course, first having some understanding of it might be of help. Many good books have been written about Sabbath, so if you want to learn more about it than this short essay can contain, there is plenty of material out there. For our purposes, I will consider just two questions: “Is there wisdom in the commandment for regular rest?” and “Does Healthy Liberal Christianity Need a Sabbath?”, or more specifically, “What are some ways that the observance of Sabbath might contribute to our health, beyond the more obvious need for rest?”

Surely, the first question is pretty easy to answer, at least in general. All human beings need rest. We sleep when we are tired, we take coffee breaks and lunch breaks, and we do sometimes engage in diversions so we don’t end up working all the time.

The second question is a bit more difficult, because “Sabbath” often gets branded with the charge that it is just one more legalistic attempt to enforce obedience. Clearly, we liberals hate to be told what to do, and we resist being obedient if the only point is obedience itself. It might be important for us to remember that Jesus got into trouble a number of times because he did not follow the Sabbath Laws in the way the religious leadership of the day enforced them. We might say that he was a religious liberal at odds with the conservatives who were in power. At one point, he reminded them that “the Sabbath was made for humanity; humanity was not made for the Sabbath.” In other words, “Treat the Sabbath as a divine gift, an opportunity, not as a divine requirement.”

If, as Jesus said, the Sabbath is a gift, what is it good for? Is it simply a mandate to rest from our labors so we will be able to labor more? It is often interpreted in that way. That would mean that productivity is the highest human value, and that we have an obligation to rest so we can put the larger portion of our time into what matters most. Somehow, defined that way, Sabbath doesn’t sound like a gift at all.

What if we tried to see the value in Sabbath itself? What if we were able to learn from our Jewish brothers and sisters that Sabbath has enormous value? Of course, we would have to stop defining Judaism only in terms of the crises found in the New Testament. But if we could open our minds, we might be able to ask the question, “How is the Sabbath a divine gift that is valuable in its own right?”

We live in a consumerist culture that most highly values productivity, entertainment, and keeping busy at all costs (and it usually costs a lot). So the idea of Sabbath having value for us seems crazy from that cultural perspective. So, it’s all the more important that we learn to see Sabbath differently. We might then learn that Sabbath is about relationship – not only relationship with God, but relationship with one another, too. We can’t relate if we don’t take the time to communicate, listen, and appreciate. The last word of the previous sentence is essential, because, above all, Sabbath gives us the opportunity to appreciate being alive. Often we humans think we need someone else to convince us that life is OK. I am reminded of an acquaintance in college who was a fierce consumer of alcohol at parties. Often on the morning after the party, he would ask, “Did I have a good time last night?” If he received an answer in the affirmative, he was happy. While our daily diversions may not be quite as mind numbing as overconsumption of alcohol, they are still quite effective. Perhaps we need some structured way to avoid both productivity and diversion so we have the opportunity to appreciate life for itself.

I think Jesus wanted people to enjoy life, and to create communities of justice so a person didn’t have to be rich or privileged in order to do so. He encouraged all people to receive the gift of Sabbath so all could appreciate life. When he healed people on the Sabbath, he was actually distributing the divine gift.

Finally, in thinking about Sabbath, I am reminded of a quotation from John Bradshaw who spoke and wrote a great deal about recovery from addiction. He said, “We are human beings, but we treat ourselves like human doings.”

Sabbath gives us the time and the space to live as human beings. That is the divine gift!

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

On Vacation

2008-11-12T15:18:00.001-05:00

Greetings friends,
I'm on vacation this week.
I may be able to post next week, but the next post will be no later than Nov. 26.
See you then.

Wayne Gustafson

President-Elect Barack Obama

2008-11-05T09:56:00.000-05:00

This blog does not usually contain editorial fare, but on the morning after Barack Obama’s election as the next President of the United States, I have set aside what I was planning to write so that I can comment on some implications of this historic event. Healthy Liberal Christianity follows the lead of Jesus in an attempt to break down the artificial barriers of prejudice that divide people into hostile camps. Last night, when I was watching the sea of humanity that had gathered in Chicago to celebrate Obama’s win, I was moved by the make-up of the diverse crowd even more than the enormity of the moment. Obama addressed diversity in his speech when he articulated some answers to those who questioned if the dream of the founding fathers or the power of democracy still existed. Even though he couched his remarks in the language of politics (he is a politician, after all), I heard loudly and clearly his call to the values of diversity, tolerance, and togetherness. He said:
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled, and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of red states and blue states: we are and always will be the United States of America.

He might just as well have said: “No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here!” But the welcome voiced by the President-elect must go far beyond hospitality. The welcome does not invite people into the house just as long as they don’t change or move anything. He echoes the United Church of Christ by affirming that we are not simply honored guests. We are family! We are connected! We are valuable participants in the process. We are one! “United” is the word that he used and it is the word we find in the name of our denomination.

It seems perfectly appropriate to me that Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. That is not to say that he will elevate the United Church of Christ above other groups; nor should he. Elevation is not the goal. Breaking through the barriers that divide people is the goal, and the crowd gathered to celebrate with him last night stood as living evidence that at least some of our embedded barriers are, in fact, falling.

During the campaign, his opponent intimated that Obama saw himself as a Messiah – one who has come to save the world. It is clear to me that he does not see himself that way, and while we’re on the subject, I don’t think Jesus saw himself that way either! Consider how many times in the Gospels we read that Jesus admonished those around him not to make him special and not to but him in between themselves and God. He affirmed the power of their faith as the real healing force. He admonished them to take their own relationship with God seriously. He called them to embody the Realm of God – not in their worship, their rituals, or their dogmas, but in their very ordinary lives. He called upon them to love one another – friend, family, alien, and even the enemy.

Barack Obama is not the Messiah. Rather he is a welcome symbol of hope and reconciliation. He has been elected to high office, but he can’t save us (and thank God, he seems to know that!). He can only inspire us to work out our own salvation as we learn to live as a wonderfully diverse nation in a wonderfully diverse world.

He is right to remind us that we have lots of work yet to do. The problems we face in our culture are enormous, but the challenges we face in our families, congregations, and local communities are no less daunting. We will need all our faith to continue working toward the promise of the Realm of God.

I want to make one final distinction. I have been writing about where Obama’s symbolic hope and the Gospel message as understood by Healthy Liberal Christianity overlap. While some similarities are clearly present, there is also a vast difference between the objectives of government and the objectives of the Realm of God.

Our most central Christian position is that we love God and that we love our neighbor (in all our neighbors’ diversity, and including our enemy) as ourselves. The goal of government is peace and prosperity. Sometimes they work together but prosperity and community always live in some tension.

That said, I add my congratulations to President-Elect Barack Obama and I invite blessings upon him and his work.

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

Healthy Liberal Christianity Looks at War and Peace

2008-10-30T10:41:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the most ignored passages in the Bible are those that deal with questions of war and peace. (Well, those that deal with poverty and wealth are right up there, too. Is it possible that they are related?)

I am particularly disturbed by those elements of Christianity that imply or state right out that God wants the “good” people to go to war against the “bad” people. As I see it, so much of scripture makes it clear that creation (yes, all of creation) is an expression of the Divine and therefore entitled to care. Sadly, too much violent language has found its way into Christian worship and liturgy, so if people don’t think clearly about it, they might get the idea that Christianity sanctions war. So much for loving your enemy!

Here is my opinion: In order to justify war (any war), “our side” must believe that the other side is evil, or perhaps just inhuman. It is only by removing the humanity from the enemy that any of us can justify the terrible things that people do to each other in a war. And once we vilify the other side, it is much more difficult for us to take a humble look at our own shortcomings. From any rational perspective, the amount of suffering and destruction in any war is unthinkable. At least it would be if we were not able to make the enemy into the embodiment of evil.

I think war should always be the absolute last resort, and should only be utilized when every other possible approach to solving the conflict has been exhausted. In short, war should always be seen as a failure! We should never glory in it, even when we come to the point where we see no other possible response. Furthermore, we should never engage in a war at all unless we are willing to include in the cost of the war the restoration of the people on the other side as well as the restoration of our own soldiers and their families. And the restoration is not only material. To subject anyone, soldier or civilian, friend or enemy, to the horrors of war without helping them through the inevitable Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is nothing short of cruel.

At the end of the war, whether one side can make a political claim to victory or not, there are never any real winners. Let me correct myself. Actually, one group always does benefit – at least financially – and that is the industry that makes and sells war equipment. But it galls me to think that these people profit from the industry of death and destruction.

Howard Zinn offers another way for us to see our role as a world super power. What if, instead of promoting the United States as a military super power, we became a humanitarian super power instead? What if, instead of committing massive resources to training people in the art of war, we trained people in the art of diplomacy and reconciliation? When I think of the massive cost of waging war, I wonder what the world would look like if we dedicated our resources to improving living conditions in all countries. It seems to me that the humanitarian approach could increase our influence in the world. But the political realities make that approach nearly impossible. Imagine how great the outcry in this country would have been if the President had committed 300 billion dollars to humanitarian causes in the Middle East rather than going to war. While there was considerable protest against the war, I fear that there would have been a much greater protest against this level of expenditure to improve people’s lives.

This is a huge issue, but I want to remain within the scope of this blog. So, I ask you at the very least to consider taking Jesus’ words seriously – as a potential practical approach to foreign relations: Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.”

This is not a naïve sentiment. It has the potential to transform the planet. Still, the industrial world has a long history of exploitation of the poor and disenfranchised throughout the world, so some of those people may be understandably angry at us and might resort to acts of violence towards us. It takes great courage and political will to interrupt the cycle of violence. But it is not impossible.

The central question, however, is whether we will let violence set the tone for our actions or whether we will develop a more mature and less reactive ethic of peace and reconciliation.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

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

Individual vs. Relationship

2008-10-23T11:10:00.001-04:00

I have noticed an interesting (though not particularly original) correlation between political and religious socio/economic perspectives.

I will begin with the political realm. As I look at the respective platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties, I notice that the Republicans seem to lean toward the rights of the individual to prosper – usually with a spurious promise that the prosperity of the few at the top will somehow find its way to benefit those at the bottom. The Democratic leaning is more toward the well being of the community and that to have a healthy community requires resources and opportunities not only to be available, but to be encouraged across the board. The Republican platform leans more towards the value of competition among individuals while the Democratic one leans more towards mutuality and care for the whole group.

Having made these broad statements, I am well aware that actual behavior does not necessarily match stated principles, and that the actuality may turn out to be better or worse than the stated objective.

At the same time, I see a similar pattern in much of religion. In America, many if not most traditions have emphasized the eternal status of the individual soul as the most important religious issue. The farther right a particular tradition is, the more individual piety seems to matter. What’s interesting here is that religious traditions seldom come into being by promoting the rights of the individual to achieve.

To give a couple of examples: much of Judaism is based in the Exodus story where the product of their wilderness experience is to become “a people” (rather than a collection of competing individuals). Centuries later, Jesus lifted up the integrity of the Realm of God as offering benefit to all, rather than the individualistic piety that had become so common in his time. Jesus witnessed to a God who cared for all people, the good and bad, neighbors and enemies, not just the socially and religiously acceptable ones.

American Christianity is to some degree a product of the extreme individualism that has always been associated with a pioneering spirit, so we have come about our problematic leanings honestly. It seems to me that the connection between right wing politics and right wing religion is no coincidence. They share the same radical individuality. This is not the kind of individuality that values uniqueness and diversity. It’s a kind of hierarchical individuality – sort of like “king of the mountain.” Everyone has an opportunity to become powerful in this system, but then the powerful inherit the right to tell everyone else how they should believe and behave in order to be acceptable.

While the political shift toward the Democrats, and particularly toward Barack Obama, may be largely a product of present economic woes, there is also an undercurrent of awareness that our system has let individuality become so extreme that corruption in the service of greed has been the result.

I would not say that individuality and community are completely antithetical perspectives. Any healthy system must hold them in proper creative tension with one another. Family System Theory says that a healthy family supports the differentiation and development of healthy individuals, and that healthy individuals tend to contribute to healthy families. This is true for groups of all sizes, even at the cultural dimension.

I hope that if the election goes according to what the polls are reporting, an improvement in both the integrity of the system and in the availability of opportunities for diverse individuals will be the result. In the final analysis, we are all connected and our cultural health is in the balance.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

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

Leadership

2008-10-16T09:45:00.000-04:00

I don’t know about you, but I am more than tired of the election season. It feels like it’s been going on forever! By this time, all the political pundits have given their myriad perspectives and the pollsters have counted and recounted, trying to figure out how the final count will go. We’ve heard about economic plans and foreign policy, the value of experience, and the danger of past relationships that might have involved controversial people. But behind the noise of the election process, perhaps we need to consider how we understand the nature of leadership itself. What are we looking for in a leader, after all?

For hundreds of years before Christ, prophesies swarmed around Israel that someone would be sent from God to save the people and restore them to their former glory. They referred to this divine hope as “The Messiah”, to use the Hebrew term that means “the anointed one.” It is from the Greek language that we get our Christian term, “The Christ”. Both the Greek and the Hebrew words mean substantially the same thing. By the way, anointing, or pouring olive oil on the head, was part of the ritual by which the priest indicated God’s choice of the next leader.

From a psychological perspective, troubled human individuals and groups tend to project their hopes and dreams onto the person who is supposed to come and save them. The Jews in the time of Jesus used the ancient story of King David to determine the model for their expected savior: the mighty warrior and great king. It is interesting to note that while the times of King David were thought of as “the good old days”, much archeological evidence indicates that Jerusalem in David’s time was not, in fact, a great kingdom, but it was rather simply the center point of a loose collection of rural communities. But of course, nobody in Jesus’ time knew that. They had visions of the past greatness of Jerusalem and they expected that God would send another a new “Messiah” who would resemble their image of King David: one who would be anointed by God to be the leader they needed. If God would only send this leader then all would be well. Sound familiar?

Probably we can relate to the feelings of those first century Israelites. Every time we go through the process of electing a President, lots of legitimate and fantastic projections are heaped onto the candidates. As the actual election draws close, our feelings tell us that if our chosen candidate is elected, all will be well, but if the other candidate is elected, we might as well leave the country, because disaster must be right around the corner.

Bad leaders believe that those projections are really about them, personally. Good leaders realize that many of the expectations placed upon them to be “the next King David” are not about them at all. What is projected onto them does not only come out of the neediness of the people, but in fact, points to the latent strength in the people that is obscured by their fear. Good leaders empower their people to make use of their own power rather than hoarding and misusing the power that has been projected upon them.

Too often, voters succeed in selecting powerful leaders, but then go back to sleep, expecting the leader to fix everything. They are likely to feel betrayed when the results are not acceptable. The best leaders do not fix, they lead. The best leaders always reflect the projected power back onto the people. This is true for kings, presidents, prophets, basketball players, and interim ministers, to name just a few.

This dynamic of psychological projection takes place in religious institutions only too often. One of my concerns about so much of current American religion involves the power that is projected onto the clergy and even onto the “correct” doctrines held by the group. That model makes leaders look powerful, and it suggests that the people should remain childish and needy. All the people can do, then, is wait for someone in authority to tell them how to believe and how to act. Bad leadership keeps the people powerless and dependent. Good leadership engenders growth, learning, and development with the goal of supporting people in their journey toward maturity.

So do you want a president or a minister who will do the job for you, or do you want a president or a minister who will help you find the best in yourselves and will empower you to take collective responsibility for your spiritual transformation (and, yes, for your salvation, too)?

Sometimes people misunderstand statements about taking responsibility for your own spiritual transformation, thinking that they are intended to cut God out of the process. Actually the opposite is true. It takes great faith to risk one’s personal and congregational identity to the process of transformation. We need leaders who will help engender such faith in us so we can more fully trust the Divine Process.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minster

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma"
The United Church___of Christ

Sustainability in the Realm of God

2008-10-08T11:24:00.001-04:00

Sustainability is a very popular word these days – and for good reason. Traditionally, businesses and other organizations have tried to evaluate themselves by isolating themselves from their larger context and by arguing that whatever happens outside of their perimeters doesn’t concern them. The classic example is the business that points to a healthy “bottom line” of profits. Every related cost that can be “externalized” improves the look of their profit statement. That approach can work only if the external environment has a virtually infinite capacity to absorb those “externalized” costs. An example might help here: Let’s say an oil company secures (or assumes) the right to drill in the jungles of South America. The company makes huge amounts of money until the wells run dry and then they leave. The resulting disruption to the local culture, the toxic sludge left behind, the environmental impact of building roads and pipelines, and the increased pollution generated by burning the oil are costs that must be borne by someone, but that never show up on the oil company’s balance sheet.

Eventually, the externalized costs begin to overwhelm the larger system, because it turns out that the larger system does not, in fact, have an infinite capacity to absorb them. We now have a system that is not sustainable. It cannot sustain its current behavior without undermining its own health and the health of the wider system.

I have given an economic example, but there are readily available examples in the realm of religion, too. For a long time, the separation of church and state meant that churches were only supposed to be concerned with the eternal soul of the individual, and that all other consequences of human behavior were out of bounds. So what happens to the externalized costs of the company CEO who makes generous contributions to the church, and makes a religious confession to insure an eternal address in the heavenly high rent district, but who continues the policies that are harmful to the world, especially to the poor and disenfranchised? In this case, the religious institution that promotes private salvation is an indirect contributor to the unsustainability of the wider system.

Those who promote concerns for sustainability in the design of all systems and organizations want us to realize that we are all connected, and “whatever we do to the Earth, we do to ourselves.” (attributed to Chief Seattle)

This is not a new idea. It is another version of “The Golden Rule”. It is certainly possible to think of the Golden Rule as an economic principle as well as an ethical one. “Externalized costs” must be paid by someone, and when they get massive enough, as they have in our present world, we, our children, and our children’s children (“to the seventh generation”) are required to pay up.

Jesus’ central teachings focused on healthy relationships and on the quality of community. The early church was remarkable because people within that community derived their sense of security from the quality of their caring for one another. “The powers that be” tend to resist and undermine the creation of sustainable systems because the values of sustainability limit their ability to feed their greed. In a truly sustainable system, people put into the system at least as much as they take out. In our present system, we are taught to take out as much as we can and to externalize whatever costs we can. Ultimately this approach can only result in the kind of environmental and social bankruptcy that are rampant today.

Bringing the argument down to the local level, many churches and other religious institutions today are trying to figure out how to survive in the present socio-economic system. Sometimes they look at themselves only in terms of how they can persuade people to join so the institution can survive. This makes congregants little more than consumers. I believe that spiritual communities can survive only if they learn to apply the principles of sustainability to themselves. A sustainable spiritual community is one that has found and developed a relationship of mutuality with the surrounding community. To that end, we at Park Church are trying to discover what the surrounding environment needs us to be. I’m not talking about chasing social and religious fads here. I am saying that in the sustainable Realm of God, we learn to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. The love we make available in relationship is the love that makes the system sustainable for all. Any system whose central value is expressed in loving relationship will be a manifestation of the Realm of God.

I believe that is the task that Jesus has given us.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minister, The Park Church

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

In the Image of God – Musings on Diversity

2008-09-30T15:41:00.001-04:00

When I’m leading worship, I often make reference to a particular statement of faith that we are all created in the image of God. (It could be argued that not just humanity, but all of creation expresses the image of God.) This notion comes from the creation story in the Book of Genesis. (1: 26-27)

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion (meaning: care and nurturance) over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Sometimes this passage is used to argue that God is really a human being, only infinitely bigger and stronger. Sometimes it is used to argue for a particular model of sexual relations. But both of those require a level of concrete thinking that while tempting, leads to a gross oversimplification. I think the idea is important enough to encourage our attempt to move beyond superficiality towards a fuller understanding. By the way, without the attempt to go deeper, the only other option for thinking people is to adopt an atheistic stance (and many people choose to go that way). I am convinced, however, that many self-described atheists are really people who have a deep spirituality, but do not have the words, concepts or symbols that are necessary to express deeply spiritual matters. Concrete language is simply inadequate.

It is my hope that “Healthy Liberal Christianity” can foster difficult conversations like this, and, furthermore, that hope is a primary motivation for the creation of this blog.

One of the “fundamentals” of the liberal perspective is that God’s created reality is more relational than absolute. God does not “stand over there” and create humans who are then placed into existence “over here.” In fact, from a liberal perspective, it is meaningless to see God standing anywhere. Our liberal affirmation is that, somehow in the creative process, the essence of God and the essence of the “stuff of creation” interpenetrate (or become one by some other, unknown process). We, then, cannot talk about God apart from God’s participation in that spiritual relationship that we believe is central to every bit of known, imagined, or unimagined reality in creation.

So, what can we say about this God in whose image we presume to be created? For myself, I begin with the “name” that God reveals to Moses from the burning bush. “YHWH” means something like “I am, I will be, and I am becoming who I am.” I take this to mean that somehow, the divine image is present in all “becoming”. When I think of myself as a separate person, I wonder how YHWH is in the process of developing in me. At any rate, I believe that my growth, development, thinking, feeling, relating, and experiencing is all part of God’s “becoming” process. And so is yours; and so is the growth, development, thinking, feeling, relating, and experiencing of every other person who has ever lived, or will ever live.

How, then, do I relate to those who I don’t know well enough (strangers), those who seem very different from me (aliens), and those who seem to be working at crossed purposes to me (enemies)? If I simply react with fear, scorn, or prejudgment, then nothing can be learned and no relationship can develop. In effect, such reactivity builds a wall between me and my opportunity to learn anything about these different (perhaps exotic) expressions of God.

Humanity is delightfully diverse, and every unique aspect of that diversity expresses God in some way. Human experience is delightfully diverse, and all that experience contains varying paths to God. Creation is not exclusive. It does not make some people more holy or worthy than others. Rather, creation is inclusive and it gives each of us a lifetime of opportunity to discover the diversity of the image of God.

So in your human relationships and other dealings, make good use of your curiosity. Welcome the stranger in your midst, and take the opportunity to learn and get to know one another. Be curious about the alien who comes from and expresses a different cultural story than yours. And pray for your enemies, not that God will “deal with them”, rather pray that you will increase your understanding of your enemy and that your enemy might increase in understanding of you.

Diversity is good. Diversity is enriching. Diversity expresses the image of God.

Wayne Gustafson

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

Religious Voices in the Political World

2008-09-24T13:25:00.002-04:00

While looking over the previous topics for this blog, I noticed that I have addressed the issue of religion in politics more than any other topic. And… tonight I’m starting a five session study group looking at Religion in Politics, making use of Jim Wallis’s book, God’s Politics. Either I have developed a personal obsession with this topic or it’s just that I’m fascinated by reading about how the political and religious worlds are rethinking their relationship.

Just this morning, there is a new report from the Pew Research Center regarding how conservatives are changing the way they see the participation of the church in politics.

Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters.

And furthermore:

There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

So what’s going on here? And does Healthy Liberal Christianity have anything to say about this issue?

We have to begin by remembering that religion and politics can interface in more than one way. Over the last 20 years, the influence of religion into politics has been primarily moralistic. A perception had grown within conservative Christianity that the liberals were using their freedom to change the social structure and undermine the church’s moral authority. Much of the energy for Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” grew out of the belief that the wider culture needed religious guidance or it would destroy itself. Apart from the manipulative use of this movement by the political far right, the motivation itself for many ordinary church-goers had a legitimate base. Sadly, the issues that came to define the Moral Majority” were restricted to opposition to abortion and homosexuality, and (incredibly) to their support for war. Even though these issues seem to be strange bedfellows, they make sense when we remember that they all are based in fear. And nothing has come clearer than the realization that fear works better than anything else if you want to manipulate your constituents.

Now, in my humble opinion, the fact that this particular use of the religious perspective was narrow-minded, judgmental, and mean-spirited does not mean that every voice raised in the political arena necessarily suffers from those same qualities. There is a vast difference between using religious passion to manipulate social behavior and using religious wisdom to enlighten and broaden political discourse.

I think political discourse desperately needs the perspectives that can come from a careful reading of religious traditions. Karen Armstrong has argued that some form of the “Golden Rule” is foundational for most of the world’s major religions. In the political and economic world today, “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been modified in the unhealthiest of ways. It now reads: “Do unto others before they have a chance to do it to you.” This could even be a functional definition of Bush’s Doctrine of preemptive strikes. Still, such a dog-eat-dog philosophy of life can only result in the destruction of us all. So we need thoughtful religious voices to shine the light back on what will help us create a community of health rather than a community of death.

It is important for us to remember that politics has always tried to keep religious wisdom out of its business (unless it could be manipulated selfishly). For a long time, religion had its “teeth pulled out” by restricting itself to heaven, the afterlife, and how souls were to be saved for eternal reward. Preachers could say anything they wanted to about heaven, but they were prohibited from addressing issues like poverty, hunger, and racism in any but the most patronizing ways. In other words, it was fine for religious people to feed the hungry, but they were not allowed to challenge the systems that supported the well being of the few at the expense of the masses.

My fear now is that many important religious voices will be silenced because some highly vocal religious groups have used their voices inappropriately. I think we need to be reminded that the care of the poor and disenfranchised has a long tradition in religious belief. I think we need to be reminded that we exist as a community with its own life and integrity and that we are not simply a collection of selfish units who compete with one another over limited resources. I think the religious voices must continue to lift up issues of fairness, respect, liberation, and relationship.

“Heaven” is in God’s hands, but life on this planet is in ours. We need voices to remind us of our sacred responsibility to care for one another and to care for the many resources we have available to us.

I guess this topic will come up again and again.

As always, I am interested in hearing what you think.

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minister, The Park Church

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

The Merchants of the Earth Weep and Mourn

2008-09-17T10:55:00.002-04:00

Greetings,

I must confess to you that I don’t venture into the Biblical Book of The Revelation very often. Its language is highly symbolic, and it has always bothered me how often the violent imagery found there has been used to build up the picture of a very angry and dangerous God, from whom we are protected by the presence of Jesus Christ. This image of God does not square with the many times Jesus tells people to stop worrying about God’s love for them. When he does make reference to divinely authored negative consequences, he is usually addressing the powerful religious leaders who heap scorn and blame onto ordinary people.

Still, whether or not God is just waiting to get revenge on us for our evil behavior, there are still consequences that emanate from human actions and systems. Jesus goes to great length to point to the “Realm of God” whose foundations rest on mutual caring for the well-being of all. From that perspective, The Revelation predicts the dire consequences of social, economic, and governmental systems that are based on greed and privilege.

In the 18^th Chapter of The Revelation, we get to look at the destruction of the great city of Babylon from the perspective of the merchants:

And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore, cargo of gold, silver, jewels and pearls, fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet, all kinds of scented wood, all articles of ivory, all articles of costly wood, bronze, iron, and marble, cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, choice flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, slaves—and human lives.

“The fruit for which your soul longed

has gone from you,

and all your dainties and your splendor

are lost to you,

never to be found again!”

The merchants of these wares, who gained wealth from her, will stand far off, in fear of her torment, weeping and mourning aloud,

“Alas, alas, the great city,

clothed in fine linen,

in purple and scarlet,

adorned with gold,

with jewels, and with pearls!

For in one hour all this wealth has been laid waste!”

I don’t want to oversimplify, but I have come to believe that whenever wealth becomes more important than relationship and community, then destruction always threatens. The destruction does not have to be spawned by God’s wrath in order to be a real danger. The fundamental danger of such economic systems is that they are primarily adversarial – they force people to fight with one another and to outbid one another, thereby jacking up the price paid to the merchants.

In these last few days, the world markets have been rocked by the failure of a couple of very large financial institutions. I am no economist, but it seems clear that the greedy push for ever greater profits, without regard for community’s fabric has been a fundamental cause of their demise. And when they fall, we all suffer. Those at the top of the pile seem to be the most insulated from the consequences, although, I’m sure there is weeping and mourning over how much “wealth has been laid waste.”

But there is a dirty little secret in our present economic system. And that is that we are all forced to play in it. When we have pension funds, mortgages on our homes, and the unceasing call for us to use credit for all the “fruits for which our souls have [been trained to] long”, when we are made so vulnerable by the very system that is supposed to help us, then we are all made to share the blame. “Well, you didn’t have to use your credit card!” “You didn’t have to get a mortgage that large!” “You didn’t have to invest your retirement money in the stock market!”

To a degree, our complicity in keeping the problem going is factual. But, what are the alternatives. If we don’t play that game, what other choice do we have? And does Healthy Liberal Christianity have any legitimate place in trying to find these answers?

Jesus saw clearly that the common people were largely victims of the systems that were established and enforced by the powerful. He did not blame the victims. Instead, he articulated a different systemic vision and called upon people to take it seriously and live by it. We can clearly see the dangers of our modern Babylon, so will we use our influence to create a system that is based more in relationship than in greed and fear? Or will we “stand far off, in fear of the torment, weeping and mourning aloud?”

What do you think?

Wayne

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma." Gracie Allen

The United Church___of Christ

A Memorial Sermon on the 9/11 Tragedy

2008-09-09T07:53:00.014-04:00

Greetings,

In honor of this seventh anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, I want to share with you a sermon I preached at an ecumenical memorial service on September 11, 2002 in Newark Valley, NY. The issues seem as timely now as they did then.

“Christian Living in a Dangerous World”

We come here today for at least two distinct purposes. The first is to remember in prayer and worship the victims and families of the tragedy that struck our country one year ago today. Our second purpose is to consider how we can live as Christians today in our complex, dangerous, and hate-filled world. I have no illusions that my words can change very much, if anything at all. Nevertheless, it is necessary to speak them out.

I wish to share simple words of faith without being simplistic. I wish to offer real hope without being naive. I wish to stand with all who have been affected without taking the side of one group over against any other. I wish to speak as a Christian without diminishing, trivializing, or demonizing any other Faith.

We have a complex situation to consider as we gather for this memorial service today. First and foremost, we remember, with all the compassionate support we can muster, every person who died as a result of the acts of terror on September 11, 2001. We want every member of every surviving family to know that we stand with them and that we pray for their healing, their comfort, and for their awareness of God's compassionate presence in their lives. But it is not enough to hold only those particular people in our prayers. As much as it hurts and as much as it scares us, we are called to make room in our faith and in our hearts for victims and survivors of hatred and violence throughout our world: in Africa, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians alike, and those in troubled countries and cities throughout the world. We are even called to make room in our hearts and prayers for the perpetrators and their families, no matter how distasteful the thought.

Complicating our response even more is the reality that so many perpetrators of violence grew up as the victims of violence themselves, in families and cultures where violent response to conflict was the norm. By saying this, I, in no way, mean to justify the perpetuation of terror and violence by anyone, nor am I suggesting that, as a civilized world, we, as individuals or as governments, can avoid taking actions that are designed to limit the destructive power of terrorism. I just believe that we cannot ignore any significant perspective as we consider our Christian response or as we direct our leaders to act on our behalf.

Another complexity facing us today has to do with the process of recovery from trauma. No matter how much we want to be able to “make it all better”, there are no shortcuts to the process of recovery. We are able to pray for survivors who have lost so much, but we can remove neither the pain nor the emptiness resulting from their losses. It is not a compassionate response when we try to cheer people up whose lives have been so deeply damaged. It is not a compassionate response to try to convince people to feel differently than they feel. But, it is compassionate when we act on our knowledge that God has granted us a healing process containing its own, often mysterious, wisdom. We can trust that people who are immersed in anger and pain and devastating loss will not necessarily stay immersed in those temporary but consuming emotions. It just takes time – lots of time. What we can do is walk with them, helping to be a container for all the human emotional responses that legitimately follow any great loss. Being present to suffering in this way is not a helpless response. “Walking with” is very effective in promoting healing. Anyone who has experienced a great loss knows that a compassionate hug is more healing than words intended to “make it better”.

We must remember, too, that every human being has experienced profound losses through the tragedy of September 11th. Many among us continue to be haunted by flashback scenes of crashing planes, crumbling buildings, of death and destruction, knowing that life will never, and can never be like it was before. Every one of us, gathered here and throughout our country and the world, has lost some sense of safety, has lost some hope that the world has the possibility of being a better place. And, if we had not already lost it before, we have now lost whatever blissful and childlike naiveté we had so carefully saved up and guarded from a more youthful and less complicated past. We all need to be the recipients of compassionate responses. Sometimes a simple, supportive hug is the best we have to offer. Don't forget to give and receive plenty of them.

Perhaps the most confusing and complex issue facing us has to do with how we respond to evil. A significant part of our remembrance today is rooted in the loving, faithful, and courageously heroic behaviors that so many passengers on the hijacked planes demonstrated: from the whispered phone calls saying one last " I love you " to the hastily coordinated action of a group of passengers who intentionally sacrificed their own lives in order to bring their plane down, averting further disaster and loss of life. We also remember, with deep gratitude, those firefighters, rescue workers, and police who simply did their jobs, even though it meant giving up their own lives as they were saving so many others. We are moved and awed and humbled by their courage.

We, who survive and must carry on, are also called to loving, faithful, and courageous behavior. We are faced with the task of determining a faithful Christian response to monstrous acts like those that happened one year ago today. Complicating matters, we are called by our faith to act out of compassion and love in a world where revenge and the perpetuation of violence seem to constitute the response of first choice for so many individuals and governments.

We understand the temptation. At an emotional level, fear and pain almost always lead to the desire for revenge. We all experience feelings like these, given the right circumstances, and we are only too familiar with how many of the Psalms are filled with passionate expressions of such vengeful feelings. However, just because we all feel such feelings does not mean it is fine to act on them.

A foundational question that must be considered in making any faithful response is this: "Do I want those pain- and fear-based desires for revenge to determine how I will act?” I was the chaplain of a state prison for a number of years. In the community, I was often confronted by questions about the appropriate response to violent crime. People would ask me, "How would you feel if this murder or rape or other violent act happened to a member of your family?" I would answer that I would feel exactly the same way they do, wanting revenge, but that I wasn't sure I was willing to allow those particular feelings, by themselves, to determine how, ultimately, I would choose to respond. And, I might add, many people who are in prison would not be there if they could have found a different response and had not merely followed their vengeful feelings. By the way, many if not most of them felt completely justified in their understanding of the situation and in the level of violence of their response.

It takes faith, hope, and maturity to be honest about the fear, the pain, and the desire for revenge without automatically acting on them. The challenge facing humanity, in the presence of so much violence and counter-violence, is to find a way to fight through the emotions to another level of response. How we respond to violence (when our feelings are screaming at us to respond in kind), reveals the health and depth of our faith. Admittedly, these words are relatively easy for a preacher to say. But this particular preacher knows how very difficult it is to get to the place where responses to violence can communicate "compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance, and forgiveness" rather than simply getting revenge? As disciples of Jesus, we are called to return good for evil instead of simply perpetuating the violence, no matter how good, righteous, or understandable our cause. Sometimes the cross we are called to carry is a heavy one indeed.

It appears to me that not only is a simplistic, violent response inadequate to the presence of terrorism in our world, but that a simplistic, loving or non-violent response is also inadequate. This is not a situation that can be resolved by simplistic responses of any kind. No action, no matter how nobly or righteously motivated is without its own consequences. As much as we might desire it, we do not live in a world that we can divide neatly into its good parts and its evil parts. It is not possible to identify the good people vs. the bad people because human beings are so much more complex than that. But wouldn't be simpler if all the good people in the world could just have a "G" tattooed on their foreheads, and all of the evil people in the world could have a similarly tattooed "E". No such luck. The Gospel is quite clear that when we succumb to the temptation to make such judgments about one another, we always make the situation worse for all. Such blanket judgments too often result in demonizing, fearing, and hating entire religious or ethnic groups. Rather, we are enjoined to love our enemies (even those whom we just think are our enemies) and pray for those who persecute us, leaving the judgments about the “G’s” and the “E’s” to God.

The Yoke of Christ is easy in that we are not required to earn or deserve God's love, but the requirements of the Christian life, particularly in today’s complex and dangerous world, are anything but easy. Fortunately, we do not have to live out our Christian responses all by ourselves. Even the heroes that brought a Washington, DC - bound jet down in a Pennsylvania field acted together.

As you prayerfully remember all who have been affected by September 11, 2001, remember also that the Spirit of the Living Christ motivates us from within, and the embodiment of the Spirit that we participate in, and call “the community of faith”, supports us from without.

Remember today…and pray deeply, for victims, for survivors, for rescuers and even, perhaps especially, for enemies. And don't forget to pray for each other and for yourselves as well. Then, together, encouraged by the loving power of God, we will proclaim in words and deeds the Gospel of healing and reconciliation to a world sorely in need of large measures of compassion. Amen.

Wayne

“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not.”

The United Church___of Christ

Healthy Liberal Christianity looks at Religion in Political Discourse

2008-09-03T11:50:00.003-04:00

Well, the big news these days is John McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. At this point it will be no surprise to you to hear that I get upset when any politician uses over-simplified moralistic stances to determine public policy. So, I’m pretty suspicious when a stance about abortion, to say nothing about gun ownership, seems to be the most significant qualification for a nominee for vice-president. I am not about to go into a diatribe about Governor Palin, but I want to consider when and how religious concerns can, and perhaps should, be included in governmental policy deliberations.

Let me begin by noting that the religious (social) conservatives seem to be thrilled with the selection of Gov. Palin. Why is that, do you think? It’s largely because she stands against abortion “in word and deed.” Why “pro-lifers” also tend to be “pro-gun” mystifies me, but her NRA membership seems to be the icing on the cake for religious conservatives.

I need to distinguish two different kinds of positions that religious discourse can take. One is essentially moralistic and individualistic and the other is ethical and community-based. I make this distinction for the sake of clarity, with the qualification that decisions made in real life are always more complex than the principles that affect those decisions.

Let’s look at the abortion question for a moment. According to my observations, the two sides in the debate about abortion have never been talking about the same thing. The main principle of the “Pro-life” group is that the sacredness of life makes any abortion automatically wrong. (By the way, I get very confused when the same people who are fanatically anti-abortion seem to be just as fanatical about the right to own a gun or go to war!!) They consistently try to paint the opposing side as favoring abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. For those on the “Pro-choice” side, the issue has never been about abortion, per se. The ethical issue has to do with how the decision is made – and that includes who has the power (and the responsibility) to make a decision about what to do with a troublesome pregnancy. In other words, is it appropriate expect a woman to be able to make a truly good decision (and are we willing to make supportive resources available to her), or must we take a more patronizing attitude and legislate what her decision must be?

Both sides of the abortion/choice argument are based in religious terms. One side says that abortion is always wrong. The other side says that when abortion is criminalized, it is only the non-rich who suffer. The rich seem always to find a way around inconvenient laws. Furthermore, the “Pro-choice” argument includes concerns for the health of the whole family and for the quality of life that a particular family can provide for growing children. From my biased perspective, it seems that the “Pro-life” position is deemed null and void after the child is born.

I must say, parenthetically, that the term “Pro-choice” is misleading. It seems to say, “I should be able to do whatever I want, and it should be nobody else’s business." This plays right into the belief of the religious conservatives that liberals don’t want any limits at all. They just want to do what they want to do. In reality, the difference in the two positions are more like “Pro-fetus-Life” versus“Pro-growing-and-developing-person-family-and-community-Life.”

For me it comes down to a choice between the imposition of a particular moralistic stance versus the broad development of a “just community." Or in other terms, “Don’t ever have an abortion” versus “We will work together to create a community of justice that both respects the abilities of men and women alike to make difficult moral/ethical decisions, and at the same time addresses issues of inequality of wealth, privilege, and resources, that in the long run will make the choice to abort a pregnancy much less necessary for anyone.”

With that last sentence, I realize once again, that it is always much more difficult to put ethical principles into simple language than it is to create moralistic “sound-bites.”

In his book, God’s Politics, Evangelical conservative and social progressive, Jim Wallis argues that the oldest and most frequent statement of the responsibility inherent in the religious life is “justice and how we take care of the poor and disenfranchised among us." It is completely unethical, if not cruel, to create a society that favors the rich, and then criticize the poor for not being moral enough! The Old Testament prophets railed against that position; Jesus railed against that position; and Healthy Liberal Christianity rails against it, too. The United Church of Christ has a long history of advocating for the needs of the poor and disenfranchised against unjust systems.

Religious perspectives will always be present in political discourse, whether they are specifically identified as such or not. So, I invite you always to ask the question, “Is a particular religious perspective primarily a moralistic demand for someone else to behave in a certain way, or is it an ethical principle that will affect the quality of life for all people in the broader community?”

Religious discourse that questions the basic fairness in a cultural/economic system will always be appropriate in the political realm and has the potential of creating a healthier community. Religious discourse that addresses a particular moralistic behavior without the context of the wider good does not belong in the political realm because it can only be divisive and it tends to support unjust systemic inequalities.

What do you think?

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

Healthy Liberal Christianity, The Environment, and Climate Change

2008-08-27T17:41:00.004-04:00

I believe that strong positions need strong foundations, so as a preface to addressing environmental and climate change concerns I need to lay some groundwork.

Throughout recorded history a fundamental battle has raged between the needs and desires of the individual over against the needs and desires of the community. Anyone who has grown up in a family has experienced the inherent tension between those opposing forces. Let me add that while the tension is not necessarily bad and can, in fact, generate some wonderful creativity, it is still very real and often difficult to manage. To begin to see the implication of this dynamic process in twenty-first century life, it helps to locate it in the wider perspective of human development.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. One frame of reference looks at how the development of an individual proceeds from dependence, through independence, and ultimately to interdependence. So, human beings begin as appendages to a community and end up as full participants in that community. Said differently, humans go through a process of differentiating themselves from a simple identification with the family in order to develop the capacity to enter into adult relationships. While the move towards independence is an essential part of the process, it certainly is not the end of the process.

Another developmental frame focuses on the breadth of the definition of “family”, or to use Jesus’ reference, on the breadth of the definition of “neighbor.” As we grow spiritually throughout a lifetime, we come to see a larger and larger group that constitutes “neighbor” for us. Jesus pushes his followers to include their enemies in the neighbor category as well. For the human race, there has always been a move to incorporate more of the world into the family. Cultures have used a variety of approaches. Some have done it by force using military conquest and others have used religious persuasion and conversion, as well as trade and economic sanction. Education and the familiarity that comes from increased contact and relationship with others also serve to draw the family/neighbor circle more widely.

In today’s world, we are able to step back to get an even broader perspective so that we see all humanity being interconnected at least through our collective reliance on the health of “mother” earth. We have learned that the decisions of a single country or multi-national corporation may well have a significant global effect. We can no longer “do our own thing” without being concerned about the impact that we have on all. Nor can we ignore the behavior of others no matter where they are on earth, because we, too, are among those who are affected.

I haven’t said a word yet about climate change, but perhaps you can already see where this argument is going. Scientific inquiry and measurement have developed to the point where we can literally “take the temperature” of our world and draw some conclusions about what recent changes might mean for us all. So, considering a broad definition of “neighbor” or “family”, how do we then “love our neighbors as ourselves”?

I see two aspects of our mandate to care in this challenging world situation. The first is the question about human contribution to global warming. I know that some people continue to argue that the scientific computer models are not sophisticated enough to show cause and effect and they argue that fluctuations in global temperature are simply following a natural cycle. From my research in this area, I conclude that, if anything, the scientific models are underestimating the scope and effects of global warming on the planet’s climate. Secondly, while natural fluctuations certainly occur, the amount and speed of this latest increase in temperature is unprecedented! It’s likely that if we do not dramatically limit our production of greenhouse gasses in the next 40 years, we may well make the Earth uninhabitable for human life within a very few generations!

If we are to care for our neighbors, we must reduce our personal production of greenhouse gases and we must help create sufficient political will to require that nations and corporations reduce their production dramatically, too.

But even if we do all this and succeed in saving humanity from mass destruction, we will not be able to avoid the inevitable consequences of global climate change entirely. And this likely outcome leads us to consider a much more urgent issue. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated without question what can happen when a low-lying coastal area has to deal with a rise in water levels. This experience tells us that low-lying areas all over the world are increasingly at risk as global warming raises the level of the oceans and potentially creates the conditions for stronger storms. Just a few months ago one of those storms devastated the coastal population of Myanmar. In areas of the world where people have lots of money, they will be able to make some mitigating changes through stronger sea walls, levees, etc. These efforts will moderate the effects on some communities. But for areas that are poor (and that means most of the world), without the means to prepare adequately, the effects will be truly devastating.

Not only do we have a Christian mandate to love our neighbors, but the whole history of Judaism leading into Christianity has called upon the powerful and rich to take appropriate care for the disenfranchised. That is our most central calling.

We need to figure our how we will accomplish these two significant tasks: creating the political will to change our toxic behavior, and mobilizing effective ministry on behalf of humanity’s most vulnerable citizens. All ideas about how to do this are welcome.

One thing is certain. We cannot insulate ourselves from the concerns of our “neighbors” and we cannot simply look to our own comfort and enjoyment. This is true whether we are conservative or liberal Christians. I call upon us to work together.

Wayne

"Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not."

The United Church____of Christ

Healthy Liberal Christianity Looks at The Church

2008-08-21T16:46:00.003-04:00

I’ve been thinking lately about a TV ad from the early 60’s. It showed a typical Caucasian family (mom, dad, brother, and sis), dressed in their “Sunday-go-to-meeting” clothes, walking into a very Protestant-looking church building. After an interval of somber organ music, the announcer proclaimed, “The family that prays together, stays together!”

Avoiding for a moment the accuracy of the statement, I am filled with a deep feeling of nostalgia. It reminds me of a simpler time with simpler ideas, a time when the church played a central role in the life of every community – at least that’s the way I saw it.

Well, is that the way I really saw it, or is my nostalgia obscuring the finer details of my memory?

Honestly, attending church (yes, it was required) was a crashing bore. The people were nice enough, but most weeks I just couldn’t wait until it was over. I had no idea what the preacher was talking about. There was that vague, but perpetual, sense of unworthiness that I think every teenager felt. Perhaps you remember, “All that fun in the world of teenage exploration must be tainted in some way.”

I did learn the stories, and figured that this Jesus guy must be really important. I learned that generosity was important and that God really wanted people to be praying and doing good religious things. Selfishness was “out” and self-denial was “in”. The Bible was important, of course, but I came to the (liberal?) conclusion that “The Bible is not true simply because it is the
Bible. Rather, it’s the Bible because over centuries, people have discovered it to be true.” So, what if my insight was a bit superficial? At least I was thinking about these things.

My point here is that no matter how narrow and frankly boring my church experience was, it played a significant role in laying down the foundations for my growth into adult thinking. While I see its limitations only too clearly, I also see its value.

But in those days the church didn’t have to compete with the rest of the world for its central position in the community. Of course, religions competed with each other, but for the most part, there were plenty of people looking for some place to worship so every church had enough. The church was the center of the religious, social, and service life of every community. And churches all had governmental support, too, not monetarily, but through the “Blue Laws” that made most other possible Sunday morning activities illegal. Stores were not permitted to open, and it was unthinkable to organize a youth sports program that cut into the church’s time. (This was not a time of social justice for all religions, however. Jewish communities, for example, certainly didn’t enjoy a comparable level of legal and cultural support.)

Twenty-first century America is a totally different world!

So many social, athletic, and educational opportunities compete head-to-head with the church these days. Besides, with all adults in a family having to work to make it in our economic environment, Sunday has become valuable time for shopping and family. The church is no longer the only game in town. It is my belief that if we try to compete for the attention of today’s consumers, we will lose. In fact, we are already losing badly.

There are some churches, however, that seem to be holding their own pretty well in the marketplace. I see three factors that affect their growing numbers. First of all, many churches have put massive resources into the level and quality of the entertainment they offer. Bands playing “modern” music, powerful sound systems, and multi-media presentations grasp the worshipper’s attention with the effectiveness of a hyperactive television screen. Secondly, they are not ashamed to give clear and unequivocal answers to life’s thorniest questions. And finally, the theology of such churches always includes at least one of two themes. God is fundamentally dangerous and will “get you” if you don’t have the grace of Christ to protect you, and/or if you get it right and stay connected to this particular religious approach, God will reward you handsomely – and then you can be rich without guilt!

I admit to overstating the issue a bit, but I believe that it is essentially accurate.

So, here is my dilemma when I think about the place of the church today. I can’t bring myself to lead a church into behavior or beliefs like those “more successful” churches. Entertainment is enjoyable, but my soul requires more substantial food to satisfy it. Simplistic answers to life’s complex questions just don’t help me. In fact, I am attracted to the wondrous complexity of creation and of reality itself. The complexity of life simply means that there is always more to learn. And if God is just a bigger and stronger version of a pathologically jealous and destructive adolescent, what’s the point.

I’m left with these questions, though. If not in the church, where can people find encouragement to transform humanity along the lines of Jesus’ vision of the Realm of God?

What will stimulate people to think more deeply about essential matters of faith, life, and relationship, and where will they get the courage, to say nothing of the encouragement or necessary perspectives, to challenge the quasi-religious beliefs that continue to support systemic injustice in our world?

And finally, how will the church discover its true identity apart from our culture’s consumerist pressures?

If we are to be people of faith who gather together for our mutual support and health, then we will need to move away from our nostalgic views of what the church once was. Its identity will have to be born anew.

Wayne

"No matter who you are, or where you are in life's journey, you're welcome here."

The United Church_____of Christ

A Liberal Christian Take on Spirituality

2008-08-13T13:57:00.005-04:00

This week I am writing about an issue that is more about the interior life of the Healthy Liberal Christian. I do this recognizing that liberal Christianity has a poor track record when it comes to spirituality. But if we aspire to practice a version of Liberal Christianity that is “Healthy” as well as liberal, we must consider this mysterious religious dimension.

Let’s face it; the definition(s) of “spirituality” is(are) pretty slippery. Some think of it as being addressed any time we consider “The Divine” (whatever that means). Others think of spirituality as being how we regard our connection to others, to God, to creation itself, and to our own inner being. Then there are those who use “spirituality” and “religious growth and development” interchangeably. In this installment, I am going to see if I can at least help myself to get clearer on these meanings.

My first thought is that “spirituality” actually refers to two different dimensions of human experience, not one. Those dimensions are “spirit” and “soul”. Again, there are those who use these terms interchangeably, too. But they’re not the same at all. Spirit is a high and abstract concept that is sometimes thought to be the direction we must follow to find God. Jesus says that “God is Spirit” and that we should “worship God in Spirit and in truth.” In a sense, worshipping God as Spirit is a way to get out of ourselves, to get beyond our individualistic concerns, to see life through God’s eyes, that is to say, from a perspective that is high and far reaching. We soar with the Spirit.

The other dimension is “soul”. While “spirit” is high and abstract, “soul” is found deep within and may be identical with our very identity. Sometimes I think of soul as the essence of God becoming real in the heart of creation. Genesis tells us that we are created in the image of God, so creation itself has soul. It might help to think about the process of how humans come into being. Egg and sperm join together and create something that is in the image of both but is not identical to either.

(I want to be very careful in using this metaphor. I am not implying that the male essence located in the sperm is the Godlike part and that the female essence located in the egg is the physical world. Such thinking has throughout history been the basis for the subjugation of women in an unbalanced, patriarchal society. I believe that such thinking retards the development of soul.)

Instead, we might think of the spirit as the mind of God and the created universe as the body of God. They unite in this ongoing sacred process to create a multiplicity of unique manifestations of the divine. The task of our spirituality, then, is to promote the growth and development of this nascent soul into its fullness and maturity. It is my observation that this task is greatly neglected in Christian religions of all stripe. Fundamentalism values immature obedience to a paternalistic God and condemns individuals who set out on an unpredictable growth process. And Liberalism, particularly in its humanistic guise, may tend to ignore the existence of a divine essence entirely.

What I’m getting at here is that the place where we find the connection between the divine and the created, where we have the opportunity to promote true spirituality, is exactly at that place we call “soul.”

Our culture doesn’t do a very good job at nurturing the soul, perhaps because healthy, mature souls develop a passion for systemic justice and are, therefore, seditious. Our institutions of higher learning are heavily weighted in the direction of career development, often at the expense of soul development. Our economy depends on promoting our veritable addiction to consumerism. Much of what we buy is made attractive by the promise that it will distract us from facing our inadequate selves, and as a bonus, by the promise that their product will transform us into what the culture needs us to become. This approach has a lot to do with making money and very little to do with promoting the development of our souls. The economic system invites us to change into someone else’s version of who we should be, while the development of the soul invites us to become more who we really are – to be people created in the image of God who strive for fullness and maturity.

Ed Friedman, Rabbi, Pastoral Counselor, and Marriage and Family Therapist identifies several aspects of the well differentiated soul, but the one that sums it up for me is this: “Differentiation is taking maximum responsibility for one’s own emotional being and destiny rather than blaming others or the context.” To illustrate: Our culture of higher education and economic systems offers us a relatively restricted list of who we can become and it exerts enormous pressure on us to select from the predetermined choices. The result is many people who have lost contact with their “souls”, even while enjoying great success in economic or status terms. Jesus reminds us, “When does it benefit you if you gain the world, but lose your soul.” A narrow interpretation means that our worldly selfishness is the “sin” that keeps us from our “heavenly reward.”

From the liberal perspective, I think the situation is more immediate and grave than that. Connection with soul is what makes life actually worth living. Without “soul” we become people who are “making a dying, rather than making a living.”

While differentiation sounds like something that an individual must do for oneself, that does not mean that we have to do it alone. We need a supportive community to help us embark on the courageous search for soul. In some Native American traditions, the person who goes on a “vision quest” goes out into the wilderness alone, but not without ample preparation and ritual within the community. At the end of the quest, the community welcomes the quester back and respectfully receives the insights of the quest and makes use of them in the community. Said differently, we need to be well differentiated “souls” in order to bring health to community, and, in return, the health of the community promotes the differentiation of the individual soul.

It appears to me that Jesus did not teach people to be immaturely obedient. He taught people to be responsible for the quality of their openness to the divine and to life itself. He always empowered individuals to take responsibility and not to attribute their legitimate responsibility and power to him. This is the Jesus we try to follow, no matter how much his teachings may challenge the “common sense” of the culture. This is our “spirituality”. Prayer may help. Familiarity with sacred texts may help. Going to church may help. But none of these remove the necessity for us to take responsibility for our own being and destiny and then to respond to the cultural systems with all the differentiation and maturity we can muster.

Wayne Gustafson

"I love my church because it's sort of like The Wizard of Oz - it's about have a heart and a brain. And courage!"
The United Church of Christ

The Politics and Religion of Fear

2008-08-07T07:10:00.002-04:00

Most of the time I stay away from directly addressing political issues even though all theology of every stripe always has political implications.

My concern today is the totally inappropriate (dare I say, evil) use of Christian scriptures and beliefs to generate broad-based fear throughout the electorate. By every account, fear is used to sway elections because (sadly) it works! No matter how unethical it may be or how much lying is used to generate fear, political campaigns continue to use it. While people may believe in the ethical principle that “the ends don’t justify the means”, in practice, the “end” of winning the election has come to justify any and all “means” that are employed to get that result. Truth, therefore, is now completely without value in much of our political system – and the more national the contest, the greater the propensity toward lying.

In an unintended way, the negative approach is working on me, too, because I find that I am afraid a lot these days. Mostly, I’m afraid that the politics of fear will continue to dominate the world of elections, politics, business, and international relations and that any possibility of trusting the process will be lost – in short, that candidates will get elected only on the basis of the magnitude of their lying, not their character or the creativity of their approaches to the problems of the age.

This raises the question about why winning at all costs has come to be so important. At one time I believed that those who aspired to political office actually wanted to be of service to the broader community and had some ideas about how to do that. In their campaigns, they would put out those ideas and if they resonated sufficiently with the electorate, they would win. I have become much more cynical in the face of the increasing mountain of evidence that too many politicians are in it primarily for the money. I have come to believe that all the political rhetoric about moral principles, about freedom, about fairness, and about security mostly boil down to a small “moneyed” elite who only want to protect their “right” to make as much money as they can without regard to how much it will cost everyone else or how much it will cost the health of the planet.

Pardon that slight digression about politics and money. What has my dander up today is a particular example of the dishonest use of religious language and symbolism in the political campaign. In a recent ad by the McCain camp, Barack Obama’s intelligence and popularity are used against him in a particularly heinous way. They refer to him as “The One” who is to come. This is a coded message to religious fundamentalists who believe that a charismatic leader will come onto the scene and rise to a position of great power. Once he is in power, he will show his true intention to destroy everything and will be known not as a great leader, but as the Anti-Christ. There will then be a great battle in which the real Christ will defeat the anti-Christ and will usher us into a new age.

A part of me would prefer simply to ignore such virulent foolishness. After all, nobody would believe such tripe, would they? Sadly, too many people are primed to believe lies just like this. So, I’m trying to think about how to approach the problem. I think there are a couple of issues here. The first has to do with the believability of these lies, and the second has to do with understanding the “coded” language that these ads use. To give another example, Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article says this:

On Sunday, longtime Washington hand David Gergen took umbrage with John McCain's recent attack ads, charging that the Senator was using coded messaging to paint Barack Obama as "outside the mainstream" and "uppity."

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, 'he's not one of us,'" said Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat, from Nixon to Clinton. "I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about."

Of course, it doesn’t stop there. Some, if not all, of these statements find their way into the internet distribution system. One widely distributed post has a description of the antichrist that makes this ominous character sound just like Obama, including that he will be a Muslim. Of course, many people don’t seem to notice that the Islamic religion didn’t even come to being until several centuries after the biblical prophecies were written, or the fact that Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ and is not a Muslim at all.

Also from the Huffington Post is the following that expresses my feelings very well:

A number of progressive religious figures are angry over the McCain campaign's recent ad "The One," which they believe paints Barack Obama as a kind of anti-Christ, specifically to conservative evangelicals:

On Beliefnet.com, Mara Vanderslice, founder and director of the pro-Obama religious group Matthew 25 Network, writes:

I found this McCain campaign ad "The One" to be one of the most offensive ads we have seen in American politics to date.
At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for the man we think will make the best President, not for a new Messiah. As Christians, we have one Lord And Savior. Jesus Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

And it is beyond offensive to suggest that Senator Obama is a false Messiah or the anti-Christ himself. How low can we go? It shows the McCain campaign is willing to make a mockery of our faith to feed people's fears. Christians need to reject this out of hand.

This leads to my final comment. What do we do about it? Ms. Vanderslice recommends simply rejecting such thinking out of hand. I tend to agree, but it really is not quite that simple. We need to be educated enough to see how political rhetoric is trying to get us to come to superficial conclusions about complex issues and candidates. This is particularly true when people use supposed Biblical references to make their points, so our ongoing religious education is vital. We must think deeply and carefully about what we are hearing. And we need to keep the light of public awareness on the tricks of the campaigning process. This is not easy because “they” come at us often and from all directions. Let’s not be taken in. Let’s stand up for more truthfulness in the process. Our culture and our churches need it.

Wayne
“Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not.”
The United Church of Christ

Reflections on a Church shooting – (This one happened to be in a Liberal Church)

2008-07-30T18:06:00.005-04:00

How many different feelings did you experience when you first heard about the shooting during the worship service and children’s play at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church? And how did those feelings modify when you found out that at least a part of the gunman’s motivation was because these liberal people had supported the creation of a culture of liberalism that had destroyed the country?

Anger, astonishment, fear, outrage, sadness, confusion? I experienced all of these. In the midst of all that emotion, I feel a need to write about this event in a way that can provide more light, not more heat. So let me set my handy flame thrower aside. To that end, I at least have to name some of the paths that I could potentially go down, but that I will not actually follow.

So, here’s what I will not do:

I will not add to the rant about how all the right wing writers (Coulter, Savage, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.) have created an atmosphere that encourages the “crazies” to act out violently against the enemies they have been taught to hate.
I will not add to the very real fear that so many people have today about the danger of taking a controversial social stand. I sometimes wonder if someone will bring a gun into my liberal congregation? No, I said I wouldn’t go there either.
I will not respond to those on the other end of the religious spectrum about how their image of a punitive (and potentially destructive) god strangely validates human acts of self-righteous destruction, though it’s mighty tempting to do just that.
In fact, I won’t get drawn into the debates about who is to blame for this tragedy.
Nor will I try to create a false sense of safety for myself or others by categorizing the gunman as an anomaly whose reprehensible behavior has nothing to do with other elements of society.

Itemizing how I will not add to the heat of the discussion is the easy part. A much harder task is to find something that might actually bring light to the issue.

So, I guess I’ll begin by itemizing a few statements that I believe to be true:

Life is dangerous – life is always dangerous.
Life’s choices always involve trade-offs, or said differently, All choices have a set of consequences that usually includes some things we like and some things we don’t like.
Thinking clearly is hard because most, if not all, truth is paradoxical!
All motivations for human behavior boil down to some combination of fear and love. OK, that one doesn’t seem so obvious, but I still believe it is true.

After all that casting about to find an angle, I am left with two pieces of useful perspective.

I am enormously sad for the victims and families and friends of the victims of that shooting. I join them in their grief, but I am even sadder to live in a culture that has found so many ways to encourage violence as the answer to life’s problems. I can find no evidence that violence does anything other than set the stage for more violence. Violent acts might create a temporary illusion that a person is acting from a position of strength, but that’s not true and it doesn’t last.

If what I wrote earlier is true (that fear and love are life’s primary behavioral motivators) then we have a choice between acting in a way that promotes fear or in a way that promotes love.

I see nothing in the central message of Jesus Christ that is designed to promote fear (unless you believe in a violent and punitive God) – only love. The love I have in mind is not the “nice-nice” variety. Real love is grounded in honesty, even when that honesty is energized by legitimate anger (the kind that can be expressed in words or creative action, not violence). The love Jesus brings is based in God’s deepest caring for the well being of all people, and even for the rest of creation. I hate to see suffering in people I love, even when that suffering appears to be self-generated. And I get angry in the face of systemic injustice. Such anger motivates acts of love, not violence.

I could write a whole book on the behaviors and stances that individuals and religious organizations could practice that would promote love, but that is beyond the scope of this blog. Let me say this much: The news/entertainment/political complex uses name-calling as its primary fuel. There is no way that name-calling can promote love, but there are lots of ways that it can promote fear – and, too often, violence. So let’s stop it. At least let’s stop contributing to it.

And let’s learn to listen compassionately to one another. If we only love those who are our friends, then we necessarily contribute to the vilification of our enemies. Healthy Liberal Christianity takes Jesus’ mandate to “love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us” very seriously. It won’t feel good like revenge is supposed to. It won’t help us pat ourselves on the back because we’re right and our enemies are wrong. But it might extract out of a violent culture a little bit of the very venom that keeps the violence going. And that is worth a lot.

Wayne
No matter who you are or where you are in life's journey, you're welcome here!
The United Church of Christ