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
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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
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
Thursday, October 30, 2008
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
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
Thursday, October 23, 2008
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
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
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
