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
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What if you outgrow church?
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
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
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Perspectives on Advent and Christmas
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
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
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thanksgiving without Violence
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
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
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Is God Violent?
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
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
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Defining Adulthood
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:
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
…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
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Whence an Ethical Foundation?
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
