Does Liberal Theology Destroy Christmas?

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

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

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

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

“For Unto you a child is born…”

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

Wayne Gustafson

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

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

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

Healthy Liberal Christianity Looks at War and Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

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

Individual vs. Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson


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

Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minster

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

Sustainability in the Realm of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minister, The Park Church

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

In the Image of God – Musings on Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne Gustafson

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

Religious Voices in the Political World

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

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

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

And furthermore:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess this topic will come up again and again.

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

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minister, The Park Church

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

The Merchants of the Earth Weep and Mourn

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

“The fruit for which your soul longed

has gone from you,

and all your dainties and your splendor

are lost to you,

never to be found again!”

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

“Alas, alas, the great city,

clothed in fine linen,

in purple and scarlet,

adorned with gold,

with jewels, and with pearls!

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Wayne

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

The United Church___of Christ

A Memorial Sermon on the 9/11 Tragedy

Greetings,

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

“Christian Living in a Dangerous World”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne

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

The United Church___of Christ