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
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Contemplation – Open for Prayer
Diana Butler Bass writes ( in Christianity for the Rest of Us) her next chapter about Contemplation. She notes a sign in front of one church that said simply, “Open for Prayer.” On the face of it, the sign indicated that the building was open for people to enter so that they could pray there. But she notes that in that particular church, it also says something about the congregation: they are also “open” to the effects of prayer.
In a way, the focus on prayer as a primary expression of contemplation can be misleading. At the very least, it can distract certain “seekers” into less than helpful discussions about who God is and whether or not there are “answers” to prayer. In my reflections, I’m going to stay with the notion of contemplation itself.
There are two common understandings of contemplation: thinking deeply about something for a period of time, or meditation on matters of a spiritual nature. A bit of linguistic context might be in order. The word has two parts. The first part means something like with or together, while the second part refers to the temple, or more specifically, the space set aside where “auguries” took place. (I’ll let you look that one up yourself if you so choose.)
In short, auguries could be seen as “spiritual answers” to life’s questions. To get such answers is the reason many people go to church. I think healthy contemplation goes far deeper than simply seeking answers, however. Healthy contemplation is a complex activity that requires the presence of several factors.
I want to borrow a particular frame of reference that has been ascribed to John Wesley, founder of Methodism. He indicated that healthy religious experience took place in relationship to four perspectives: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience. I am suggesting here that we understand his four perspectives as broadly as possible. As I understand it, scripture is a cumulative record over many generations of the experiences of human beings in relationship with the divine. Some would maintain that only the Judeo-Christian Bible qualifies as scripture, but for the sake of this discussion, I will assume a wider definition. Either way, scripture gives us a time-tested perspective.
Tradition is not about institutional authority. Tradition includes those practices and those formulas of belief that people have found useful. The ten practices articulated in Bass’s book make up a tradition in Christian circles. Tradition includes the activities people practice that they find effective in enhancing their spiritual lives and connections. Tradition includes the presence and activities of the individual’s spiritual community, too.
Reason is the use of a logical approach. Contemplating as thinking things through is an example of the use of reason. Wesley may not have known this, but even our emotional lives have an intrinsic logic, and therefore qualify as a kind of reason.
Finally, Personal Experience is just that. It is an individual’s accumulation of first hand encounters in relationship with seen and unseen realities.
I think contemplation needs all four of these In our noisy and busy world, contemplation is very difficult. I could argue that much of the noise comes from strident promotion of just one of the four perspectives at the expense of the others (but that’s a good topic for some other time).
Some thinkers, like Ken Wilber, for example, believe that religious gatherings are uniquely suited to provide opportunity for, and training in, contemplation, meditation, and prayer, that lead to first-hand experiences of a less materialistic, more spiritual dimension of reality. I tend to agree.
With so much pressure from governments, businesses, and the media that shapes our thinking and our beliefs, we need a safe place to set all that manipulative noise aside. We need a place where we can embrace and be embraced by a much wider and less self-serving perspective.
One example will have to suffice. If (bear with me on this) God is love and therefore embraces all creation with that love, then what do life and our decisions in it look like from that universal loving perspective? Contemplation gives us a way to try it out.
One final thought. Contemplation is not exclusively an individualistic activity. Groups, including churches, also can benefit from embracing that wider view of reality. But watch out – what you encounter may well transform your individual life, and it may well transform the life of your church or group, too.
What do you think?
“Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not. God is still speaking.”
The United Church__of Christ
In a way, the focus on prayer as a primary expression of contemplation can be misleading. At the very least, it can distract certain “seekers” into less than helpful discussions about who God is and whether or not there are “answers” to prayer. In my reflections, I’m going to stay with the notion of contemplation itself.
There are two common understandings of contemplation: thinking deeply about something for a period of time, or meditation on matters of a spiritual nature. A bit of linguistic context might be in order. The word has two parts. The first part means something like with or together, while the second part refers to the temple, or more specifically, the space set aside where “auguries” took place. (I’ll let you look that one up yourself if you so choose.)
In short, auguries could be seen as “spiritual answers” to life’s questions. To get such answers is the reason many people go to church. I think healthy contemplation goes far deeper than simply seeking answers, however. Healthy contemplation is a complex activity that requires the presence of several factors.
I want to borrow a particular frame of reference that has been ascribed to John Wesley, founder of Methodism. He indicated that healthy religious experience took place in relationship to four perspectives: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience. I am suggesting here that we understand his four perspectives as broadly as possible. As I understand it, scripture is a cumulative record over many generations of the experiences of human beings in relationship with the divine. Some would maintain that only the Judeo-Christian Bible qualifies as scripture, but for the sake of this discussion, I will assume a wider definition. Either way, scripture gives us a time-tested perspective.
Tradition is not about institutional authority. Tradition includes those practices and those formulas of belief that people have found useful. The ten practices articulated in Bass’s book make up a tradition in Christian circles. Tradition includes the activities people practice that they find effective in enhancing their spiritual lives and connections. Tradition includes the presence and activities of the individual’s spiritual community, too.
Reason is the use of a logical approach. Contemplating as thinking things through is an example of the use of reason. Wesley may not have known this, but even our emotional lives have an intrinsic logic, and therefore qualify as a kind of reason.
Finally, Personal Experience is just that. It is an individual’s accumulation of first hand encounters in relationship with seen and unseen realities.
I think contemplation needs all four of these In our noisy and busy world, contemplation is very difficult. I could argue that much of the noise comes from strident promotion of just one of the four perspectives at the expense of the others (but that’s a good topic for some other time).
Some thinkers, like Ken Wilber, for example, believe that religious gatherings are uniquely suited to provide opportunity for, and training in, contemplation, meditation, and prayer, that lead to first-hand experiences of a less materialistic, more spiritual dimension of reality. I tend to agree.
With so much pressure from governments, businesses, and the media that shapes our thinking and our beliefs, we need a safe place to set all that manipulative noise aside. We need a place where we can embrace and be embraced by a much wider and less self-serving perspective.
One example will have to suffice. If (bear with me on this) God is love and therefore embraces all creation with that love, then what do life and our decisions in it look like from that universal loving perspective? Contemplation gives us a way to try it out.
One final thought. Contemplation is not exclusively an individualistic activity. Groups, including churches, also can benefit from embracing that wider view of reality. But watch out – what you encounter may well transform your individual life, and it may well transform the life of your church or group, too.
What do you think?
“Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not. God is still speaking.”
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Healing – Entering Shalom
The third of the Christian practices that Diana Butler Bass identifies in her book, Christianity for the Rest of Us, is Healing. She rightly points out that among all Christian practices, this has been the scariest and least understood by the main-line, liberal churches. The reality of healing is another example of the way that we have effectively deferred to Fundamentalist Christianity to define the essential pieces of the Christian life. We have come to believe that healing is primarily an individual matter, that it depends on the supernatural intervention of God, and that it is brought to bear by means of activities like intercessory prayer (praying for God to intercede in the life of another) or by the “laying on of hands.” Liberal minds respond to the ministry of healing, especially as practiced by television healers, by dismissing it out of hand. It looks like magic and it looks staged, and we liberals “know” that both are suspect.
I suspect that Jesus would not agree with the common definition of healing that is held by the fundamentalists (who affirm its truth) and the liberals (who reject it as nonsense). Diana Butler Bass identifies healing with shalom, one of those wonderful words that can mean so much, including a condition of health and wholeness. But the health that shalom points to must always be seen in the context of community and relationship. It is not an individualistic commodity that some have and others do not have.
Shalom is sometimes translated as peace. This peace (and justice) is the hallmark of a healthy community. A healthy and balanced community does not pit the needs of one group against the needs of others. It demonstrates a broad distributive justice. So, where then does the individual fit in?
To answer this part of the question, I will make use of “Family Systems Theory,” particularly as it has been articulated by Dr. Murray Bowen. In his work with schizophrenics and their families, Bowen observed that dysfunctional symptoms manifesting in an individual were actually the creation of unconscious family dynamics over several generations. . Bowen rejected the notion that the symptoms of the individual belonged solely to that individual. For Bowen, the dysfunction belonged to the family system and its mode of operation. He maintained that if the systemic issues could be healed, then the individual’s symptoms would be relieved, at least in part.
Said in other words, healthy systems spawn healthy individuals, and unhealthy systems identify certain individuals as the “sick ones” in their midst. So, let’s look at a specific example from the life of Jesus. This past Sunday, the lectionary reading (Mark 5: 21-43) included the story of a woman who had been bleeding for many years. No one had been able to cure her, so she remained “unclean” and therefore, untouchable. In effect, she had to live her life cut off from her family and community. When Jesus, surrounded by a large crowd, comes near her, she works her way through the crowd and grabs onto his robe. Immediately, she is healed.
We could simply say that Jesus had the healing power so she was healed by that power. Or we could ask a different question. What gave her the idea to touch Jesus in the first place? Was she looking at it simplistically, that he possessed the necessary power? Or, did she realize that he was about the business of healing the community by breaking many traditional barriers? A woman who was “bleeding” was considered unclean and she could neither touch nor be touched. But Jesus touched people. He went against the common religious tradition by touching the lepers, the blind, the crazy. Perhaps if she, in her “unclean” condition could just touch him, she would experience, first hand, his acceptance of her. She believed that he could heal her by means of breaking through the barrier that separated her from everyone. What Jesus says to her is significant for our discussion. He says that “her faith” has healed her (perhaps that she had faith in his acceptance of her), and he invites her to “go in peace.” In this context, he must mean that the barriers have been broken and that she is no longer an outcast.
It’s important that we hear the larger message: Our “Christian Mission” is to spread healing and wholeness throughout the community by means of breaking down the barriers separating people. Perhaps when an individual experiences the remission of symptoms (like cancer, for example) what is really going on here is the power generated by embracing that person in the collective arms of the community. That demonstration of inclusion is powerful, indeed. And the remission of symptoms need not be the result of magic, nor does it require a special injection of divine power. The power to heal, to live in shalom, already exists within us.
What’s your understanding or experience of healing?
Wayne Gustafson
“No matter who you are or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
The United Church__of Christ
I suspect that Jesus would not agree with the common definition of healing that is held by the fundamentalists (who affirm its truth) and the liberals (who reject it as nonsense). Diana Butler Bass identifies healing with shalom, one of those wonderful words that can mean so much, including a condition of health and wholeness. But the health that shalom points to must always be seen in the context of community and relationship. It is not an individualistic commodity that some have and others do not have.
Shalom is sometimes translated as peace. This peace (and justice) is the hallmark of a healthy community. A healthy and balanced community does not pit the needs of one group against the needs of others. It demonstrates a broad distributive justice. So, where then does the individual fit in?
To answer this part of the question, I will make use of “Family Systems Theory,” particularly as it has been articulated by Dr. Murray Bowen. In his work with schizophrenics and their families, Bowen observed that dysfunctional symptoms manifesting in an individual were actually the creation of unconscious family dynamics over several generations. . Bowen rejected the notion that the symptoms of the individual belonged solely to that individual. For Bowen, the dysfunction belonged to the family system and its mode of operation. He maintained that if the systemic issues could be healed, then the individual’s symptoms would be relieved, at least in part.
Said in other words, healthy systems spawn healthy individuals, and unhealthy systems identify certain individuals as the “sick ones” in their midst. So, let’s look at a specific example from the life of Jesus. This past Sunday, the lectionary reading (Mark 5: 21-43) included the story of a woman who had been bleeding for many years. No one had been able to cure her, so she remained “unclean” and therefore, untouchable. In effect, she had to live her life cut off from her family and community. When Jesus, surrounded by a large crowd, comes near her, she works her way through the crowd and grabs onto his robe. Immediately, she is healed.
We could simply say that Jesus had the healing power so she was healed by that power. Or we could ask a different question. What gave her the idea to touch Jesus in the first place? Was she looking at it simplistically, that he possessed the necessary power? Or, did she realize that he was about the business of healing the community by breaking many traditional barriers? A woman who was “bleeding” was considered unclean and she could neither touch nor be touched. But Jesus touched people. He went against the common religious tradition by touching the lepers, the blind, the crazy. Perhaps if she, in her “unclean” condition could just touch him, she would experience, first hand, his acceptance of her. She believed that he could heal her by means of breaking through the barrier that separated her from everyone. What Jesus says to her is significant for our discussion. He says that “her faith” has healed her (perhaps that she had faith in his acceptance of her), and he invites her to “go in peace.” In this context, he must mean that the barriers have been broken and that she is no longer an outcast.
It’s important that we hear the larger message: Our “Christian Mission” is to spread healing and wholeness throughout the community by means of breaking down the barriers separating people. Perhaps when an individual experiences the remission of symptoms (like cancer, for example) what is really going on here is the power generated by embracing that person in the collective arms of the community. That demonstration of inclusion is powerful, indeed. And the remission of symptoms need not be the result of magic, nor does it require a special injection of divine power. The power to heal, to live in shalom, already exists within us.
What’s your understanding or experience of healing?
Wayne Gustafson
“No matter who you are or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
The United Church__of Christ
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Discernment – Listening for Truth
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Hospitality – Welcoming Strangers
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
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
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Embracing the Practices of Faith
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
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
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Church and Spiritual Growth
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
