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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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