Why Jesus?

Before beginning this week’s topic, I want to respond to a comment left on the blog by Steve. He wrote:

But my experience is that liberal Christians only want to hear about the experiences of other liberals or members of nonchristian faiths -- never from conservative members of their own faith.

Sadly, I agree with Steve in two ways. Much of liberal Christianity is not of the healthy variety, and, in my experience, deep listening to someone who sees things differently is almost non-existent in all quarters. For me, however, Healthy Liberal Christianity is a direction worth pursuing. Therefore, I recommend that we all engage in lots of respectful listening, where the objective is to gain a deeper understanding of how the other person came to see the reality in such a way, rather than judging their position or requiring agreement. Real listening must always be more about honest curiosity that looks for new information rather than being a test of someone’s orthodoxy (or heterodoxy, for that matter). So Steve, thanks for underscoring that important issue and for this opportunity to remind you that Healthy Liberal Christianity is something we strive for, not something we necessarily possess already.

As I prepare to go on to the issue of “Why Jesus?”, or asked differently, how we understand the question of “Atonement Theology”, it strikes me that this issue is a perfect occasion for learning about what makes respectful listening so difficult. Let me begin by articulating a couple of very different ways that people understand Jesus. This issue is a major fulcrum around which conservative and liberal Christian positions often revolve. Without noting the differences in the positions, any real dialogue is virtually impossible. So, here is my short (and therefore necessarily oversimplified) version.

From the more conservative perspective, humans were created as good (does that mean, obedient?) people. Disobedience (as described in the events in The Garden of Eden) destroyed the possibility of that life in Paradise After some 1200 years of unsuccessful human effort to use adherence to “The Law” as the means of salvation, God finally responded graciously to this impossible human task by becoming a human being in Jesus Christ. “The Son”, then, sacrificed himself on the cross to pay the ransom (to atone) for all human sin, so that God (The Father) would not be required (by the divine sense of justice) to punish (banish) humanity eternally. and the concomitant introduction of evil made salvation impossible to attain without divine intervention.

When Jesus was subsequently resurrected, his own eternally restored life became the sign that his sacrifice qualified as an acceptable payment for human sin. All we humans need do, then, is accept this “truth” and ask for Jesus to be our “personal Savior”. In this way, gracious salvation from eternal punishment is to be had simply for the asking. (My apologies for any inadequacy in this summary.)

For many liberal Christians, atonement theology is replete with stumbling blocks. Let me summarize some of them with these three questions:

1. Is obedience the primary way to measure a proper relationship with God?
2. Is God really that mean (some would say, abusive) that Jesus must sacrifice his own life to protect us from God’s wrath?
3. If God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ is not for the purposes of atonement, then what, if anything, might it mean?

The problem with the liberal perspective is that so many people have either not made the effort to articulate a different Christology, or, armed with the best of intentions, they haven’t known where to begin. So the two default positions become atonement theology on the one hand or vague comments about the impossibility of resurrection or the infinite kindness of God on the other.

For liberal Christianity to be healthy, we have to work a lot harder to articulate an alternate vision. This is where healthy and respectful listening is so valuable. First of all, when you listen to someone else’s carefully constructed position, and ask them questions about how they got there, you benefit from hearing some important foundational ways of looking at things. At the same time, you are encouraged to think more deeply and clearly about your own foundational positions. It is never enough to say, “I don’t agree with you,” without getting down to the level where your axiomatic beliefs differ from the other. Then it truly becomes a matter of faith – that is to say, a matter of your personal fundamentals.

When liberals and conservatives do the hard work of excavating the foundations of their opinions, then their real differences come to light. Now, there is another possible outcome. Sometimes, when we look at the level of fundamentals, we discover that we are coming to conclusions based on axiomatic positions that we do not even believe. And our deep and respectful listening to one another then might affect life changing modifications in our positions.

You see, when you listen deeply, you can never guarantee how you will be changed by the experience. Perhaps that’s why people resist listening in that way. To paraphrase a common saying: “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with any deep truth that will cause me to change how I see things.” If we are to be healthy liberal (or conservative) Christians, then we must take the risk of listening to one another.

We may learn more about how to evaluate the health of human/divine relationships. We may learn more about the varied images of God we carry. And we may even learn more about why Jesus came.

Wayne

"Our Faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not." United Church of Christ

Religious Belief and Religious Pluralism

Greetings

If I were to write from a particularly arrogant stance, I might try to persuade you that Healthy Liberal Christianity is inherently superior to other forms of religious belief and practice, including other forms of Christianity. And I would be wrong to try to do so!

On the surface, it seems that Liberal Christianity contains a fundamental contradiction, for on the one hand, a person might say “This is what I believe with my whole heart”, and on the other hand, that same person would also be prepared to affirm the legitimacy of other spiritual paths. Don’t I have to believe that something is “right” in order to believe it? Not necessarily, for it turns out that the issue is not about who is right.

Let me illustrate my point in this way. When meeting a couple for the first time, my wife and I have often been interested in finding out how they got together, fell in love, and decided to get married. And everyone’s story is marvelously different. If I listen carefully and respectfully, I might even find out how their lives were enriched and broadened by virtue of the new room that the very experience of falling in love created in them. Each lover discovers the capacity for deeper understanding, compassion, intimacy, and appreciation for life that goes even beyond the immediate connection with the beloved.

Now when someone tells me how they fell in love and they identify the object of their love, should I take offense that they didn’t fall in love with the same person that I fell in love with? Of course not!! You see, the experience of falling in love at all is much more significant than the identity of the particular beloved. So, too, is it with faith and belief.

Falling in love is a dimension of growing up. Falling in love helps us to grow beyond the selfishness and narrowness of our ego-based perspectives. Falling in love opens us up to the realm of the miraculous. Falling in love engenders hope in the face of a challenging future. Falling in love elicits the divine image in a way that brings us to the most sacred manifestations of our own humanity. Falling in love is really important.

But of course, I’m not only talking about a romantic version of falling in love. I’m talking about falling in love with God, not necessarily as a separate being, but as the underlying reality of love, relationship, creativity, connectivity to the whole universe, hope, purpose, and all the rest that might define our spirituality.

The development of a romantic relationship serves as a useful template for our relationship with the Divine, too. All relationships, (perhaps especially those that float on the wings of romance) begin with a large measure of what might be called “projection.” In other words, we see in the other person much more than what is actually there. In the first throes of love, we are blinded to some of the realities of the situation by the experience itself, while that same blinding experience prepares our inner being to perceive life more deeply and magnificently than we could have seen it before. Over time, the layers of unconscious expectation (you know, like our expectation that the beloved will always see us as the center of their universe) that we initially laid onto the beloved must be peeled away and integrated into ourselves if we are to develop a real relationship with the real person who is “behind” the overlay of our projections. In the process (that takes years, by the way) we learn more about this other person, and as a bonus, we also learn more about ourselves.

As a result of our acculturation in a largely Western Christian environment, we are trained to expect that God will manifest certain attributes. When we withdraw our projections and set aside our preconceived notions, we then find that the idea of God is much more complex, comprehensive, and (sadly) indistinct than we expected. This can generate a crisis that gives us the choice between digging in to defend our old images of God and the alternative of embracing the uncomfortable truth that the reality of God will always refuse to be limited by our definitions. I believe that staying in the relationship promotes maturity, even if we don’t know where it will lead.

Healthy Liberal Christianity affirms that relationship with God is always dynamic – one might say, alive. So, fall in love with the divine, and then value every opportunity to hear other people’s stories of how they, too, fell in love. And when you read the Bible (or the sacred text of any other faith, for that matter), consider reading it like a love story. You might learn a lot, and be enriched by it, too.

Wayne Gustafson

"Our Faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not." The United Church of Christ

UCC Sacred Conversations on Race

I’ve been reading a number of articles and postings regarding the United Church of Christ’s call for churches and communities to enter into a nationwide sacred conversation about race. (I invite you to consider reading some of this material yourself from the resource page that the UCC has created to support this endeavor. See info and link below.) I think this is a terrific idea.

Once again, as I indicated in my last installment, I find it’s a bit daunting for me to dare comment on essential issues when so many wise, experienced, and learned voices have already produced so much thoughtful and useful writing on the subject. Still, there is a particular angle that I do not find being addressed, and this concerns me because I believe it is one of the grounding elements of Healthy Liberal Christianity. Let me say it this way: While there are so many significant issues that we are compelled to address (and certainly race is one of them), it seems to me to be grossly unfair to send people into dialogue around thorny issues without their being equipped with appropriate tools and the skill to use them.

What I fear is missing from any dialogue around race (or any other divisive issue) is the ability to communicate well. How can we have a fruitful conversation if we believe that communication simply involves becoming more articulate so as to get our point across to others more effectively? Before we can claim mastery of communication, we must first learn to listen; and we must listen deeply enough so that we can excavate beneath the superficiality of one person’s poorly formed (and poorly informed) opinion that is pitted against the equally inadequate opinion of another person. Now, you might wonder I think this issue is central to Healthy Liberal Christianity. Extreme conservatism attempts to hold onto the status quo, and so any competing perspective that might be challenging is seen as a threat to be defended against. Unhealthy “left wing” Christianity plays out as just another version of such conservatism. Your old idea and my new idea compete to see who wins. I make use of the term “liberal” (and healthy liberal, at that) to refer to a very different quality of communication between and among differing perspectives. A true liberal wants to come to understand as many perspectives as possible. The goal is integration, learning, healing, and growth - not winning!

It disturbs me greatly to observe that the apparent purpose so much religious, political, and social communication is primarily to “win the argument.” So the only reason then to listen to your opponent’s line of thought is to refute it, not to learn from it!

Wait a minute, are all conversations then actually arguments? If we observe the quality of most communication, that’s exactly the conclusion that emerges. People tend to go into meetings and other conversations with the goal of winning others over to their previously determined position.

What if instead, our conversations were really about learning something new? What if we put more energy into learning about how our adversaries came to their understandings and conclusion, rather than working so hard to convert them to ours? Do we really believe that to learn something from our “enemy” is tantamount to failure?

Any theological position that comes without a healthy side order of humility, by which I mean a willingness to learn something new, will necessarily increase the presence of communication-killing of violence. If we are to be healthy, however, in our liberality and in our Christianity, then Jesus call for us to “love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us turns out to be more for our benefit than for the benefit of our enemy.

Good tools for communication actually exist, and they’re not even all that complicated to learn or to utilize. For example, check out Nonviolent Communication at

http://www.cnvc.org/

or at http://nvctraining.com

For now, find below some information about “sacred conversations.”

Wayne

from http://www.ucc.org/sacred-conversation/

“On Sunday, May 18, many pastors across the UCC will be preaching on race in hopes of beginning a sacred conversation, a dialogue that is needed in our pews, our homes and the hallways of power across our country. After May 18, congregations are encouraged to develop a months-long process in order to set aside the necessary time and attention needed to structure a sacred conversation about race.

The UCC is holding this national dialogue in order to foster a spirit of healing and unity in our churches and communities. While much has been said during the past few weeks about the Rev. Jeremiah A Wright Jr., this dialogue among our members is intended to be a larger conversation, one not focused directly or exclusively on the recent controversy, but one certainly influenced by it.

Sacred conversations are never easy, especially when honest talk confronts our nation's painful past and speaks directly to the injustices of the present day. Yet sacred conversations can, and often do, honor the value of diverse life experiences, requiring an openness to hear each others' viewpoints. Growth often happens when honest conversations are communicated in a respectful environment.

In the coming days and weeks, this webpage will be a repository for resources to assist with preaching preparation and worship planning for May 18. In addition, you will soon find materials to assist your congregation with how to plan church-wide and community-wide dialogues that will enable "sacred conversations" to take place.

While May 18 is an opportunity for UCC pastors to preach collectively on a common theme, it's impossible for a sacred conversation on race to be a single-day event. Instead, pastors and lay leaders are encouraged to begin thinking how the coming months can be used to appropriately plan and organize your congregation's role in facilitating a sacred conversation on race.”

Healthy Liberal Theology and Politics

I write this installment with no small amount of trepidation. People who are much more articulate and learned than I am have weighed in on the present controversy surrounding Barack Obama and The Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I have read a good many commentaries and essays on the issues, but still, I feel motivated to add my voice to the chorus.

I begin with the deep sorrow I feel at the quality of discourse in our supposedly educated culture. And, if I am not careful at this moment, I can, just as easily as anyone else, be guilty of adding even more heat to the conversation without benefit of adding light. The moment we begin to judge the inadequacy of another, real conversation tends to stop and all that is left is name-calling, superficiality, and a likely increase in resentment and distrust.

What is at stake in this controversy? Is the argument mostly about Barack Obama’s qualifications for the U.S. Presidency? Has our electoral process come to the unfortunate place where the only value any issue has is its power to cripple “the enemy”? Is the conflict rooted in a desperate hope that we might legitimately expect and receive fairness and justice? Is it about the freedom to say whatever we choose, without taking any responsibility for the impact of our words? Is it about the still potent American shadow of slavery and racism? Is it about the place of the church in present-day culture, a church that no longer enjoys the status it once enjoyed as the centerpiece of every community’s religious and social life? Who really knows?

It may be that all these questions add some fuel to the fire, and increase the levels of sweaty discomfort. I am still naïve enough to believe that real discourse is possible. And furthermore, that if we are willing (and able, of course) to listen to each other and are interested in excavating the underlying issues, we can grow and learn both as individuals and as a culture.

In this context, I want to think about the relationship between church and state. Let me begin with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You will notice that there are two parts to this amendment, known respectively as the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. So, government cannot establish a religion, not can it prohibit the free exercise of religion. This does not mean that government and religion have nothing to say to each other. Nor does it mean that they might not hold to some common values. We must, however, be clear (and here is the point of my argument) that the purpose of religion and the purpose of government are not identical. While they may use similar language in describing their efforts to address societal problems and issues, their respective definitions of what constitutes a healthy community can vary widely, and can even be diametrically opposed.

To give an example, I recently preached a sermon about Jesus’ time of temptation in the wilderness by the Devil. I argued that his temptations were essentially around comfort, safety, power, and status. I also argued that temptations for Jesus are temptations for us, and that they distract us from our spiritual mission. Politicians and governments (particularly democratic governments), however, promise to improve lives by means of those very things! This is not to say that the values of government and the values of religion are always opposites. There can be a great deal of overlap in what they work towards. This perspective also does not assume that the values of religion are necessarily better than the values of government. But, for the sake of our thinking about these issues, let’s just remember that religions and governments do not exist for the same fundamental purposes.

This brings us back to the Obama/Wright controversy. Barack Obama is a politician who is running for political office and Jeremiah Wright is a Christian minister. To judge one of them on the basis of the words or beliefs or values of the other simply makes no sense. It may, however, be useful to make use of each perspective as an opportunity to shed some light into the dark corners of the other. The founders of The United States had suffered severe religious oppression, mostly at the hands of state-sanctioned religion. They wisely challenged any religion’s capacity to impose its beliefs and values on everyone. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental value. On the other hand, religion has a long history of challenging the tendency of governmental power to increase the oppression of the disenfranchised. Certainly, the Judeo-Christian tradition is filled with prophets and saviors who challenged governmental oppression wherever they found it, (often in the strongest terms imaginable). There are so many examples of this condemning language in the Bible’s prophetic literature.

Here is just one example from the prophet, Hosea 10: 13-15

You have ploughed wickedness,
you have reaped injustice,
you have eaten the fruit of lies.
Because you have trusted in your power
and in the multitude of your warriors,
therefore the tumult of war shall rise against your people,
and all your fortresses shall be destroyed,
as Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel on the day of battle
when mothers were dashed in pieces with their children.
Thus it shall be done to you, O Bethel,
because of your great wickedness.
At dawn the king of Israel
shall be utterly cut off.

(This doesn’t sound like a blessing of the government to me! It sounds more like the opposite!)

Even though the dialogue between government and religion is always important, there are some essential limitations. It is not the legitimate role of religion to bless (and by that I mean, validate) governments. Still, it is a powerful temptation to religion to do just that, although the cost of succumbing to the temptation is the loss of its soul. In the same way, it is not the legitimate role of government to sanction (positively or negatively) any religion, although, likewise, whenever governments succumb to their own temptation to do this, they tend to become despotic.

So, what’s my point? Of course, Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright don’t agree. Barack is a politician, not a minister. Still, he could benefit from observing the light that religion casts into government’s dark corners. At the same time, Jeremiah is a minister, not a politician. He has been the champion of the cause of a largely disenfranchised segment of the population for decades. He speaks on behalf of a human race that has been oppressed, marginalized, and treated unfairly in countless ways by America’s economic and governmental structures. To do his job properly, it is most appropriate for him to advocate on their behalf.

It saddens me that so many in the media and in certain political camps do so much to blur this important distinction. We are capable of much healthier discernment than that. So, don’t be bullied into settling for their superficial and inflammatory interpretations. You know better.