Initiation

One of the significant losses in evidence in modern culture is the loss of appropriate rites of passage and initiation rituals. Teens consider drinking alcohol, getting a driver’s license, and sometimes having sex to be among their major rites of passage. It seems to me that practices such as these are not really “rites” of passage, but are seen as “rights” of passage. “I’m old enough now so I have the right to engage in previously prohibited behaviors, (No matter how destructive they might turn out to be towards me or others.)”

While there might be some legitimate new behaviors that are appropriate to begin at certain ages, those do not constitute the central purpose or value of a true rite of passage. A true rite of passage has more to do with a kind of transformation that might involve taking on certain new responsibilities, for example. One kind of responsibility has to do with pledging to be a functional part of a community, albeit uniquely. Some people think of this as finding “your place,” but that concept has been used in such a controlling and prejudicial way in our culture that I want to say it differently. What I mean is that one of the responsibilities of adulthood is a recognition that a community depends on a kind of mutuality of functioning: a recognition that “what we do to (or for) the community, we do to (or for) ourselves.”

In its unhealthier manifestations, initiation gets confused with indoctrination. Indoctrination insists on the adoption of and allegiance to a particular world view. Indoctrination has been used enforce a kind of tunnel vision that maintains unbalanced and otherwise unfair social systems. Indoctrination tends to separate people from one another in a prejudicial way, while true initiation invites a broadening of perspective into a more comprehensive, and usually a more just world view. Indoctrination creates a power imbalance, while true initiation empowers individual and community alike.

One could argue that Jesus instituted a kind of initiation that he called the rebirth by the spirit. Its purpose was not to establish a new elite class, made up of people who held entrance tickets to heaven. The purpose of the rebirth by the spirit was a rebirth into responsible participation in a community that included “all God’s children.” Institutional religion is always tempted to forget this characteristic of inclusiveness and connectedness, and become exclusive instead.

Sometimes true initiations are designed to prepare people (both individuals and communities) to face new and often difficult challenges. If in fact we are confronted with potential social and environmental collapses related to the time of “Peak oil” production, climate change, and economic and social systemic fragility, then we need a new initiatory process.

Is it reasonable to assume that the church can participate in such a process? That depends. Will we really look beyond our immediate concerns for institutional survival? Will we cooperate with other organizations that have done such good work in articulating the current problems and challenges? Will we focus our concerns on the salvation of the personal soul (and the devil the hindmost), or will we initiate ourselves into the perspective that we are all in this together and that salvation vs. damnation is a community issue, not an individual one?

I propose that it is essential for us to create our rites of passage and our rites of initiation with deep care and vision.

What are your experiences with initiation (and its evil twin, indoctrination)?
And how would you imagine a healthy “rite of passage” into a challenging and largely unpredictable future?

Wayne Gustafson
“Don’t place a period where God has place a comma.” Gracie Allen
God is still speaking.

How Can We Generate More Light than Heat in Public Discourse?

It’s a well documented fact that political (and religious) groups today are highly polarized. Political perspectives tend to be categorized as “Progressive (the term that has largely replaced “Liberal”) or “Conservative.” As I read the news reports about public demonstrations, including those that have obvious religious foundations, I am struck by a disturbing quality that seems to be common to all sides. The shorthand version is “We’re right, and you’re wrong!” I also include its evil twin: “If you do not agree with me completely, then you are my enemy!”

To be honest, I can’t imagine how any relationship, common ground, or new learning can be possible in such a divisive environment. Some would argue that Jesus demands that everyone take sides. (Both progressives and conservatives use this argument in some form.) They use passages from Luke and Revelation to support that position. Unfortunately, it seems that both sayings are taken out of their appropriate context. One comes from the third chapter of Revelation:

‘And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: ‘I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

While this could mean that the “angel” (or “spirit”) of this church hasn’t taken a clear enough stand on particular social issues, it could also mean that the people have kept their religious beliefs separate from their behavior. It is always appropriate for us to consider the behavioral expressions of our beliefs. The next lines in Revelation essentially say that the people don’t make the connection between their lifestyles and their spiritual poverty. Their lukewarm quality comes from their lack of understanding that their lavish lifestyles create suffering for others. They don’t change because they “don’t get it!”

The second critical passage comes from Jesus in Luke 11: 23

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

This does not mean that everyone who does not agree completely with Jesus on every point is automatically the enemy. When his words are taken out of context, the problem worsens. So let’s put his statement back into context. Some powerful religious leaders are spreading the judgment that Jesus’ activity of casting out demons is motivated by Beelzebul (the devil). Jesus has made it clear in many ways that he is working in the direction of the Realm of God and that people are either working with him in that direction or they are not. Whenever individuals or groups fail to understand Jesus’ meaning and motivation perfectly (which is probably most, if not all of the time), agreeing with him becomes functionally impossible. I think we can get a lot farther if we try to learn from one another rather than arguing about who holds the correct position.

In modern public discourse, the issue at hand is usually a particular policy (abortion, poverty, health-care, or marriage laws, to name a few). I would argue that human issues like these are so complex, that a simple agreement or disagreement with the policy does not easily translate into working for or against the Realm of God.

I would suggest that Jesus teaches compassion (which is the opposite of judgment) more than anything. A good beginning point in public discourse is to recognize that there are many legitimate issues. When people listen respectfully and compassionately the various perspectives, all have the opportunity to understand the inevitable complexities more deeply. And, please note that the responsibilities do not fall only on the quality of listening. When articulating a particular perspective, we are most honest when we recognize the trouble spots as well as the strengths in our positions. No solution is ever perfect. Or, in other words, no solution comes without significant costs and consequences to someone.

If we simply vilify all opponents as well as all opposing positions, then we will have no opportunity to increase understanding, nor will we have opportunity to develop “human being to human being” relationships.

I think it never works to say to someone else, “This is what you should believe or support.” Rather let’s keep posing good questions for one another, questions like:

• I think it never works to say to someone else, “This is what you should believe or support.” Rather let’s keep posing good questions for one another, questions like:
• In what diverse ways does this policy affect different social and economic groups?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of any particular position?
• Are there other creative approaches that might not be included in either of the existing arguments?
• How do we balance the needs of a community with the needs of the individuals that make up that community?

These are just examples, but if they are asked and answered respectfully, then everyone has the opportunity to learn and grow.

I will close this installment by noting another statement that serves to frustrate everything I have suggested above.

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts!”

In my opinion there is way too much of that attitude in public discourse today. So, let’s spread real light, and let’s receive the legitimate light that comes even from the positions of our opponents.

Remember, Jesus also challenged us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. That love belongs in all of our important conversations that deal with complex issues. Love generates light.


Wayne Gustafson
Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking isn't.
The United Church__of Christ

How, Then, Shall We Live?

A few years ago I attended a conference where Wayne Muller was the primary resource for the weekend. He talked mostly about his book, How Then, Shall We Live?: Four Simple Questions That Reveal the Beauty and Meaning of Our Lives. His four questions were these: Who am I? What do I love? How shall I live, knowing I will die? What is my gift to the family of the earth?

I want to make use of the point of his third question, but modify the context a bit to include the kinds of changes that are already taking place in our culture. For example, on yesterday’s news came the report of a huge storm in Southern California. Now, maybe what I heard was simply hyperbole when the announcer said, “This is the largest storm ever to hit Southern California.” Furthermore, the storm comes on the heels of a number of wildfires, so the possibility of mudslides is greatly increased.

Our present challenges don’t come only from “natural” happenings; although when we include hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, and tsunamis, there seems to be a lot of disaster around. From a year and a half to a year ago, the world economic systems experienced unprecedented strains and threatened to collapse. The news is also full of reports on the swine flu pandemic with frightening estimates of how many of our children are highly susceptible to it and may die. Less dramatic, but no less disturbing is the variety of cultural changes that affect churches and other religious organizations. Not too many years ago, the time for religion and family was built in to the calendar, and to be an active church member was a natural part of being a good citizen. Oh well.

I know that you could easily add to the list of present challenges, so I won’t say any more about those. For the purpose of this installment, it’s simply enough to conclude that life is not “going back to normal” any time soon. While we are able to take note of some of the things that are already happening, we can’t predict what other kinds of experiences are waiting to happen to us. So, the question that surfaces when we look at our world is something like this: Knowing that we are facing extraordinary, disorienting, and unpredictable events (added to our awareness that eventually we will all die), the question becomes, How then shall we live?

This question is as applicable to groups and institutions as it is to individuals. What must we learn about how to be the church today? What will we have to leave behind in order to carry on? How can we make the Gospel message pertinent to the challenges of the day?

Much of the content of our New Testament was written in the years right around the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. They address the anxiety that inevitably accompanies severe social upheaval. Those writings also teach us how to be a community based in God’s love and they point to the inevitable collapse of the Roman Empire. One could argue that the same conditions that eroded the foundations of the Roman Empire might be present today.

This blog is not about predictions, other than to say that things will change (and they are already changing in dramatic fashion). If we have our eyes open, we already have plenty of evidence. But, (and this is a significant but) – knowing this, How, then, shall we live?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
"Our faith is 2000 years old, our thinking isn't."
The United Church__of Christ

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

With so many people talking about environmental concerns, and with all the efforts being made to come up with new paradigms and new solutions to existing problems, I have been wondering about how some of the ancient wisdom might inform the conversation. For example, Jesus made some extraordinary statements, many of which have been difficult to understand. One significant statement that we might explore is this: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Does anyone ever take this seriously?

Of all the qualities that our culture encourages us to develop, meekness is surely not among them. Perhaps we do ourselves a disservice by misunderstanding the word, however. In our language, meekness means having no power or authority. So, we conclude that the meek are simply swept away by the powerful objectives of others.

As is so often the case, our translation lets us down, or at least misleads us. What if the word in the Bible that we translate as “meek,” actually means something else? The idea of gentleness or humbleness moves us in the right direction, but even those words don’t go far enough. As I think of Jesus words in the context of his overall teaching and ministry, I come up with some deeper, and frankly, more powerful meanings.

Think of it this way: What if Biblical “meekness” is the opposite of exploitation. Then we can translate the saying something like this:

Blessed are those who do not relate to other people or to their environment in an exploitive way.

Or to put it in positive terms:

Blessed are those who use their inherent power and authority to relate lovingly and cooperatively with those (including the environment) around them.

Currently, we are learning the painful lesson that if we relate to the earth in an exploitive manner, we eventually make it uninhabitable for us. But if we relate cooperatively with the natural world, then it continues to nurture us and we thrive together. One might say, we “inherit the earth.”

Of course, the word “inherit” needs to be understood in context also. We usually think of inheritance as something passed on to us that becomes our property. We become the owners of the estate, for example. That meaning is similar to the exploitation discussed above. We might think that because we own something, we have the right to exploit it in any way we choose. Although it turns out that we effectively kill ourselves when we exploit our environment.

But, our inheritance is not about receiving “the deed to the earth.” Our inheritance gives us the opportunity to relate to the natural world in a way that maintains the health of the world and that, in turn, maintains our health, as well.

Perhaps this is a valid perspective from which to evaluate the proposed drilling for gas in our area. Is this a case of exploiting the natural world? If so, how could we relate to it in a more cooperative, dare I say “meek” way?

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

Is Religious Practice Good for You?

I recently read a book called How God Changes Your Brain. Now before you start worrying that this is another of those dogmatic, but untested ideas about how necessary relationship with God is, let me assure you that this work comes from a highly reputable source, and while it has some startling conclusions, it is not a veiled attempt to manipulate or indoctrinate you into some kind of Christian Orthodoxy. This series of studies articulated in the book is a product of The Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania. It is co-authored by Andrew Newberg, MD, a physician who is the Director of the Center and Mark Robert Waldman, a therapist and lecturer who is an Associate Fellow of the Center.

According to their own research, and including their review of many other reputable studies, religious practice is not only good for the brain, but it is good for relationships and community, too. One interesting factor is that “God” or a particular image of God is not a necessary factor in creating the beneficial effects. For example, a broad range of meditation practices have been shown to be highly and rapidly beneficial to memory and general cognitive functioning. There is one qualification, though. If the focus of meditation does include an image of God, the nature of that image does matter. While the details of the particular image are inconsequential, whether the image is positive or negative matters a great deal. If a person meditates on the image of an angry, demanding, dangerous God, effects on the brain are negative. A positive, loving, forgiving image, however, results in very positive effects from meditative practice.

In short, the following eight practices enhance brain function (listed from least to most effective): Smiling, Intellectual Activity, Conscious Relaxation, Yawning (that’s right, Yawning!), Meditation, Aerobic Exercise, Dialogue with others, and (get this!) Faith.

This last practice is a bit surprising in the light of their assertion that the particular religious or theological formulation doesn’t matter. It comes to this. Being able to trust in your belief system is really good for you, even if you recognize that you can’t know for certain if it is true!

Does this mean, then, that beliefs shouldn’t be challenged? Should we all become conservative in our theological perspective? I don’t think so, and here is why.

A part of a healthy belief system is its ability to mature over time. So while we may not have to trust the ultimate accuracy of our belief systems, we must believe that those systems are the best we can have at the moment, and we trust (and this is the key) that growth and development is integral to our theology and to our faith/trust in it.

Getting back to the list for a moment, I encourage you to see how many of these activities are present in your life. I also ask you to consider if your religious community encourages these activities, or if for some reason, it ignores or even inhibits them.

Now, theoretically, all of these can be exercised without participation in a religious congregation. Still, speaking personally, I find that I need the support of like-minded others. No matter how useful or noble religious practices might be, I have a hard time staying engaged all by myself. Religious congregations don’t have to exist in order to promote these activities, but wouldn’t if be great if they did? What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ

The Church in Interesting Times

Perhaps you know the ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in an interesting time.” It was a curse because the conservative temperament of the culture of that era demanded consistency, predictability, and regularity in all of life’s affairs. The more modern phrase – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – would have adequately expressed the general sentiment.

Sometimes social progressives think of change in terms of necessary growth and development, but they run into resistance from those who hold the above sentiment. The challenges of 2009 have the capacity to drive conservatives and progressives alike stark raving mad. It seems that everything around us is broken. A political system that used to function by means of dialogue and compromise has become a dysfunctional mess of partisan posturing. A business community that used to see itself as providing valuable contributions to the well being of all has deteriorated into a fight for short-term profits that ultimately have little to do with the services and goods that are provided and received. The social and cultural environment that used to build in space for the well-being of families, and even had room for Sabbath, has changed into a set of overwhelming demands for time and resources that suck the energy and spirit out of everyone. The church that used to stand apart as a sanctuary and as a healing community for people, now must compete with sports teams, entertainment offerings, video games, i-phones, the internet for the small remnant of time and resource that the demands of working for a living leave unscheduled.

We can’t go back to how it used to be – at least not right away. But, we also can’t ignore the ever-present drain on time, energy, resources, and spirit either. I have said many times that if the church tries to compete in the worlds of entertainment, sports, or even service organization, sooner or later it will lose. While it may touch many other areas, the church does not exist fundamentally for entertainment, competition, or even public service.

If the church cannot be defined in those terms, what, then, is it? When I was growing up, the church was simply the place you were a part of on Sunday mornings. It had something to do with heaven, and something to do with the spiritual truth about life. It had very little competition from other social activities (although, I will confess to having gone skiing instead on some Sundays). The church didn’t have to work very hard to define itself, because those were less complicated times. Its identity and its connection were generally understood by most people that I had any contact with.

In our “interesting” times, this is no longer the case. I think we have to work very hard to articulate who and what the church is today. We certainly need to know what the community needs from us, but, more than that, we need to know who we are. What is characteristic of who we are as the church?

Here are some of the characteristic attempts to describe the church’s identity:

1. The church knows God’s will and has to convince people to follow it – or else!
2. The church is the (only?) way to salvation – whatever that means.
3. The church is the soul of the community – and without it, the community may have no soul.
4. The church is a collection of sinners who know that God’s love is bigger than their individual or collective “badness.”
5. The church is a collection of the lost, who at least know that they are lost.
6. The church is a meeting place for people who know God’s love and those who seek it.
7. The church is where you can ask all the questions that are not allowed in other places.
8. The church is a sanctuary from the problems of the world.
9. The church is a spiritual filling station.
10. The church is the “body of Christ.”

I’m sure there are many others.
All I know is that many churches are trying to live and be in an interesting time.

How would you articulate the identity of the church today?

Wayne Gustafson
“Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking isn’t.”
The United Church__of Christ

When a Virus Comes to Church

While I was driving to the church this morning, NPR news was reporting that many religious congregations are rethinking their worship practices in the light of the increasingly prevalent and dangerous viruses that get passed around during flu season every year. Holy Water, shaking hands, hugging, Holy Communion taken from a common cup, and kissing the Torah are all obvious ways that viruses can be passed around. These practices, however, have been deeply rooted in meaningful worship experiences for a very long time. It’s hard to let go of them.

In the last church I served as Interim Minister, the worship bulletin routinely carried this statement:

We value the opportunity to share the peace of Christ with one another in our Sunday morning worship experience. So that we might preserve its positive quality for all, we ask that you be sensitive to the needs of your fellow worshippers with regard to how the peace is passed. In some churches the peace is passed with a hug. While hugging can certainly happen here, we invite persons always to ask permission first. People differ in their desires for and comfort with physical contact, so we try to be respectful of those differences.
During cold and flu seasons, some persons might request that there be no contact at all, including handshakes, to protect against the spread of disease. Please don’t take it personally. Of course, at any time you are invited to communicate your welcome of one another and to share the peace of Christ with your warm words.

While the hygienic benefits of a policy like this are obvious, we cannot simply adopt them without acknowledging deeper significant issues. Christianity has always been ambivalent about human bodies and human touch. Some passages in the New Testament (usually taken out of context) suggest that matters of the spirit (or mind) are “godly”, while matters of the flesh (that means human bodies and emotions) are intrinsically evil. Sexuality typically is seen to be suspect and most human desires surely lead to trouble. On the surface of human experience these ideas carry a lot of truth. For example, it is true that sexual contact can be used as a way to avoid intimacy. But just because sexuality can be used inappropriately, that doesn’t make it evil in its essence.

But, human life and experience is not confined to the superficial. I am reminded of the famous study on infant survival that was done right after World War II. During the rocket attacks in London, many infants were orphaned, and these babies were cared for in large well-run orphanages. While the basics of food, water, clothing and protection were given to all the children, only a certain segment of them survived. The essential factor turned out to be the availability of touch. Those babies who were not held enough, that is to say who did not experience enough human touch, did not thrive. Only those who were touched enough were able to survive. There are those who worship in our churches who do not receive any touch apart from that occasional ritual touch in church (or when they go to a physician).Even adults need loving touch in order to thrive. (Of course, abusive touch is another matter altogether, for children and adults alike.)

Loving touch is vital to human beings, so when we make rules that limit touch, we must be aware of what we are losing, and we must attempt to recreate those lost, but necessary, experiences in other ways.

From the perspective of that human need for relationally based touch, we can identify many layers at which touch can happen. And not all of them require physical touch. So let me suggest that we need to touch minds – and we do that through deep conversation and dialog. We need to touch spirits – and we do that through prayer, worship, singing together, and even through our communal “play.” We need to touch emotionally – and we do that by laughing and crying together and by mutually deep listening to the emotional foundations of our deepest held beliefs.

While we go about adopting approaches to limit the spread of viruses (and I strongly recommend that we do), let us also adopt approaches to maximizing human being-to-human being contact in as many other ways as we can. Let’s find ways to celebrate together, to grieve together, to sing together, to play together, to listen deeply and respectfully to one another, and to address the legitimate needs of the world around us together.

But don’t forget to use your hand sanitizer.

Wayne Gustafson
“Never place a period where God has placed a comma.” Gracie Allen
The United Church__of Christ