Hope in Wholeness

photo by Tim Graves

When I get too focused on protesting or on politics, I become discouraged and cynical. I see evil behind every human frailty; I see conspiracies at every turn. I see a battle of good versus evil. Eventually, I become a miserable person. I feel betrayed, impotent, and angry. Hopelessness descends. Despondent, I give up.


Focusing on the One whose love envelopes me and connects me to each grassy blade, each sea anemone, and each human being, results in optimism. I find hope in wholeness. That wholeness -- that for Christians emanates from the Table set by Jesus and manifest in love that overcomes death -- is powered by the extravagant love of the Divine. When I focus and respond to that loving grace, I am compelled to act for justice, love with abandon, and strive to be my best self. 


Attuned to the divinity that coarses through you, me, and all of creation, I see see goodness despite human frailty. Filled with hope, I strive to do my part for the whole knowing that I am not alone. Goodness is within every annoying bureaucrat, murderer, and abusive parent. When I respond in love, love multiplies and ripples powered by the One. 


At its core this is the Good News, love always wins in the end. It is more powerful than death, conspiracies, or greedy politicians. When we respond from the divine love within us, justice will "roll down like waters, and righteousness an ever-flowing stream." (Amos 5: 24 NRSV Read this passage in context.) 

Identity without Exclusion

I always stumble over the question. You know that simple one, "Where are you from?" Not only have my wife and I lived on both coasts and lots of places in between during our thirty-three year marriage, I moved around a lot as a kid.

The failure to provide a simple answer, I know, confounds people. We use place as a marker of identity. We also use education, skin color, political party, Myers-Briggs score, and religion as ways of labeling and identifying others. We seem to be hard-wired to define ourselves. The problem is that we too often define ourselves in contrast to others. 


At their best, identity markers start a conversation. At their worst, these labels  exclude and demonize those who are different. Labeling puts people into a definition. When we label others (or ourselves) we diminish the divinely gifted uniqueness of an individual. 


Political or religious fundamentalism has a tendency to define itself in contrast to the other. If you subscribe to the tenets of the inside group, you're accepted. If you do not you are evil or, at best, misguided and naive. Fundamentalism preys on exclusion and fear setting impenetrable boundaries around itself.


This approach to identity, can result in grandiose claims that hurt others. For example, Dennis Marcellino said in a recent post that "The Bible does say that if a person votes for a democrat (the promoters and supporters of sin) and were to die without repenting of that, he or she is going to hell." Marcellino is identifying his beliefs against the beliefs of others. 


A positive identity does not rely on putting others down. While I share a professed Christian faith with Mr. Marcellino, I identify my beliefs positively. For example, the primary Christian narrative of inclusive, extravagant love and resurrection helps me to make sense of my experience of the Divine. It gives me hope for the future. 


Regardless of someone else's beliefs, I find meaning in the Gospel of Jesus. This positive identification does not dismiss another person's journey or experience. My faith is not contingent upon your agreement or disagreement. (Though, my faith is challenged within the faith by the checks and balances of the Koinonia.) 



In our efforts to psychologically and emotionally cope with our changing culture and uncertain times, it is critical that we define ourselves positively. When we define ourselves against others, we risk falling into hatred and dehumanization of others. To fall into hatred or dehumanization of others is to fail to live up to the potential with which we were created. 


‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’ Matthew 22: 36-40 NRSV (Read this passage in context.)

Theologies Evolve as We Seek the Divine

A tweet by @MattRWilkins crossed my Twitter stream this morning. Wrote Wilkins, "Many are redefining the theology of the church today & in so doing they are redefining God. Mark it down, God is NOT up for redefinition!" Wilkins' implications in this tweet are problematic in many ways. I will address five in this post. 


1) He implies that theology is somehow "of God." Quite the contrary: theologies are "of people." Theologies are human attempts at understanding the inexplicable. Much of the biblical witness is a collection of theologies by the original authors. They often vary because God is the mysterium tremendum. They conflict because each of the ancient's experiences of the Divine were filtered through personal experiences, culture, time and place in history, and scientific understanding of how the world works. The same can be said of contemporary theologies. 


2) He implies that the church has unanimity of opinion. The historical record contradicts the idea that "the church" has ever been of one mind theologically. The times when the Roman church had multiple popes, the Protestant reformation, and the Catholic counter-reformation are but a few examples of times when theologies were far from singular. The only way to argue that the church has ever had one theology is to exclude vast numbers of followers of Jesus from the church. 


All who profess Jesus and seek to follow his teachings, however imperfectly, are part of the church, of the body of Christ. We all have spiritual gifts to contribute to the whole.


3) He implies that the theologies of the church have never changed. As humanity has sought to understanding the spiritual realm ideas have evolved. This is true within Christianity. In seeking to understand the nature of God, for example, followers of Jesus developed trinitarian theology over centuries.


The trinity is a post-biblical interpretation of the scriptures which expands upon themes within the Bible. I tend to use trinitarian language because it helps me describe my experiences of God. This language is not the literal nature of God. It is a human construct designed to understand the Divine. Other followers of Jesus, part of the church, do not subscribe to trinitarian theologies. 


4) He implies that God is silent in our age. To suggest that our understanding of the nature of God was complete at some point in the past, suggests humans can define God. He intimates that God no longer speaks. To do so is to deny the entire Pentecostal movement, the everyday experiences of billions, and to restrict the Divine. A silent God is a dead God.


5) Most alarming is that he implies that he owns God. In dismissing all but his own theology, and those who agree with him, the tweeter himself defines God. To maintain this arrogance he must dismiss the experiences of those who find the Divine in other ways. He lays a stumbling block before others and acts as the gatekeeper to Jesus' love.


Reading this tweet, I imagined a man standing with his arms crossed stubbornly in front of Jesus. Those willing to define God in the way in which he defines God, are welcomed and hugged by Jesus. Those who do not, are forcibly removed.


I experience God differently. The One I experience, stands before us all with open arms. Encouraging us forward, smiling and exuding joy in our mere presence. Like a toddler attempting a first step, if we fall God picks us up, brushes off our knees, sheds a tear with us, wipes our eyes, and wraps Divine arms around us. If we are able to take those first toddler steps, God's face lights up and divine arms of joy wrap around us. Whether we fall or toddle forward, the God I know, whispers in our ear, You are my Beloved.


For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8: 38-39 NRSV (Read this passage in context.)

A Thought About Truths

The rational, the observable and measurable capture some truth. We are blessed to live in a world of science and mathematics used to sustain us. To focus only on this one truth, or aspect of the whole, is to perceive the bark as the whole of the apple tree. It is to enjoy the apple without its core of seeds.

Uncloaking the intricacies and mechanisms of Creation does not explain the abundant love which is within, between, and that envelopes us. For that truth we must tap into the spiritual. We must simultaneously go within and beyond ourselves. We must be long enough to perceive. When we do that, we experience another truth: that the One binds you and I together with the polar bear and the ant, the blade of grass and the artichoke. 

Or So I Thought

The hostility oozed out of the words on the screen. The disdainful sentences had nothing to do with the post.


Or so I thought.


I moderate comments on my blog to prevent hateful speech, spam, or personal rants unrelated to the topic. A few weeks ago I received two sequential comments from the same individual. 


The first asked why God would make a clitoris if not to use it. As part of the diatribe the commenter said, "You assholes have done nothing to promote this most wonderous [sic] of god’s creations". She followed up the first comment with, "By the way have you tipped your waitress lately? She makes 3.63 an hour you cheap [expletive]". 


Neither of these comments related to the post about the difference between ecumenism and interfaith. Her comments never appeared on my blog because of my own criteria of not allowing hateful speech or rants unrelated to the topic. They had nothing to do with a post clarifying terminology.


Or so I thought.


***


A few days ago I laughed out loud when viewing a cartoon drawn by David Hayward. In the cartoon, the church is a box trap. The bait is hearts representative of unconditional love. The church too often promises a loving community but fails to deliver. That is the trap. 


Hayward's simple drawing captured my experience of too many churches. Love is promised if you're straight, if you think the right way, or if you put the church china  away properly. Love is for insiders and those who make no mistakes.


Despite my own enjoyment of the cartoon, it had nothing to do with the unpublished vitriolic comments.


Or so I thought. 


Synapses Firing


Richard Beck suggests in The Bait and Switch of Christianity that the church, "has essentially become a mechanism for allowing millions of people to replace being a decent human being with something else". An overemphasis on "working on our relationship with God" results in neglecting working on being decent people. One piece of evidence he cites is the poor tipping behavior of churchgoers. 



Beck's comment about poor tipping behavior caused a synapse in my brain to fire. Could there be a connection between the angry comments and my blog after all? What if she was commenting on my Christianity? Was the commenter angry at me because I am Christian?


Don't dismiss me yet; I'm not suggesting that Christians are persecuted. We are not. 


In its history the Church has endorsed, done, and ignored heinous things. The children's crusade, the witch hunts, and the anti-semitism leading to the second world war come immediately to mind. In contemporary times, those claiming to be followers of Jesus have been hateful and hostile to our GLBTQAI kindred, to women, to the poor, to Muslims, to Jews, and others. 


None of these hateful actions or words are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. None of these actions reveal the abundant love of the Divine. Nonetheless, they've become associated with Christianity as a whole. 


What if the would-be commenter to my blog sought to comment on Christianity as a whole rather than a particular post? What if she had been hurt by the Church's arrogance or by less than loving Jesus followers? Lord knows we've hurt people before and still do so too often. 


Sins of the Church: Arrogance


There are more sins of the church than can be discussed in one blog post. The church is made up of imperfect humans after all. I suspect, however, that it is not our imperfections but our arrogance in implying that we have the one (and only) truth that offends those of other or no faith. Our unwillingness to take responsibility for the failures of our history and our contemporaries' hateful rhetoric and actions undoubtedly are also offensive. We don't always exude the love of the One we claim to follow.


Though I believe there are multiple paths to the Divine, I believe Jesus is the path God has set me upon. Within his humanity, we find a near-peer who serves as a guide for us on our journeys. As a follower of Jesus I strive, within the bounds of my own humanity, to love fully. I walk the path of following Jesus with billions of my contemporaries and with my historic kindred.


Our journey as Christians, as followers, as servants of humanity, includes sharing the joy we've found in our faith. Lest I be misunderstood, sharing is not force-feeding or dismissing other paths. Sharing is not arrogant nor is it judgmental. Sharing means living a life as consistent as we're able with the extravagant love revealed in the biblical narrative and creation. It means love revealed in relationships and working for social justice. It can also mean talking with others about the love we've found in our faith.


Love, however, does not force others onto our freeway to the Divine. Love doesn't restrict access. Jesus' love is not a toll road. It is a freeway in which we are all welcome; but, there are other ways landscaped with God's love. 


Or so I experience the Divine. 

Jesus Protect Me From Your Followers

It is all too easy in a week like this for Christians - especially regular churchgoers - to become so enthralled with the platitudes, the church words, and the small "s" spirit of the impending Easter Sunday to become insufferable to others. 


We act like we have the answer to all of life's deep questions. We don't. At best we have an answer that makes sense to us. Our theology about the Divine is of our construction. That's not a bad thing; it's just that to suggest that somehow we can characterize the mystery that is God is arrogant and offensive to those who characterize the Divine differently. 


Walking Humbly


On this Holy Monday I share this video to remind us how some of our actions are perceived by others. We celebrated Palm Sunday yesterday. Palm Sunday is a day when, according to the gospel narratives, our ancient forebears thought they were about to succeed in propping Jesus up as an earthly king. They continually ignored his warnings about what was to come by Friday. 


So, as we journey through Holy Week, let us not forget what the Lord requires of us: 


‘With what shall I come before the Lord,

   and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before [God] with burnt-offerings,
   with calves a year old? 
Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
   with tens of thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
   the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’ 
[God] has told you, O mortal, what is good;
   and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
   and to walk humbly with your God? 
Micah 6: 6-8 NRSV (Read these verses in context here.)

Careful What You Wish For

A woman I know likes to characterize us this way: "We play well with others." Like me, a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), she emphasizes the denomination's ethos of ecumenism [See note below]. Disciples have been at the forefront of the movement for church wholeness throughout its history. This, despite two Restoration movement splits which resulted in three streams of the Stone-Campbell movement [2]. 


Initially growing as one at its inception on the American frontier, a primary difference between Disciples and the other two streams is our work with other church bodies (e.g.; Methodists, Catholics, etc.) wherever possible. Disciples tend to interpret the Restoration principle that "We are Christians only but not the only Christians" as a mandate for ecumenism. 


Juxtapose this with the Disciples' traditional laments that,

1. We have an identity problem.
2. Disciples who move from one community to another often change denomination becoming Baptists, Presbyterians, or UCCers.

While I recognize that some of these laments are shared by other Christian denominations, as a multigenerational Disciple, I wonder. Why should we be surprised - or disturbed - that folks who relocate do not necessarily end up in another Disciple church? Do we or do we not believe that "We are Christians only but not the only Christians"? Perhaps, our ecumenism and work for wholeness of the church has been at least partially successful. Maybe the Holy Spirit moves in the world, nudging you, encouraging me, and whispering in someone else's ear that denominations need to fall? 


Careful what you wish for, you might find it coming to pass.


***


[1] Ecumenism refers to cooperation and collaboration within Christianity. Ecumenism is sometimes confused with interfaith, which refers to cooperation and collaboration between faiths. For example, a Thanksgiving service  conducted by Roman Catholics, Methodists, and Disciples is an ecumenical gathering. If Reformed Jews and Buddhists joined the Roman Catholics, Methodists, and Disciples at the same Thanksgiving service, it would be interfaith rather than ecumenical. At an ecumenical service it is appropriate to pray “In the Name of Jesus Christ”. This would not be appropriate at an interfaith service.

Do Christians Hate Women?

This post is an open response to A Crone Speaks Out: Why Do Christians Hate Women?


***

It is true that Christianity grew out of a culture of patriarchy. Too many Christians still use the canon as a weapon to put down women but you imply that all Christians hate women. This undercuts your moral authority and is simply not true. Nonetheless, Christians have a history problem. The faith has too often been used to exclude, to spew hatred, and to dismiss our kindred in other and no faith traditions. I cannot, nor will I attempt, to sweep that under the rug. 


Those who use the text to spew hatred of women and others read the text in a way in which it was never intended, that is, literally. 


The Hebrew Bible (commonly called the Old Testament) is a collection of the stories and theological perspectives of ancient peoples. The Adam and Eve story - one of two distinct biblical creation narratives in Genesis - has been used historically to promote patriarchy. It should not be read in isolation of the first story in which women and men are created equally by God.

So God created humankind in his image,
   in the image of God he created them;
   male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 NRSV (Click here to read this verse in context.)

***


In the simplest terms, the creation stories in Genesis were written to explain that the Divine had a hand in creation. The second story, which you use to support your claim that women-hatred is a root of the faith, can be interpreted as a rejection of Pagans. (Though that was probably not its primary purpose.) 


Remember that these ancients strived in their stories to distinguish themselves from others. The Hebrew people were regularly oppressed, under occupation by outside groups more often than they self-governed. To survive as a distinct people, it was critical that distinctions between insiders and outsiders were clearly drawn. 


The problem is that the contemporary Christians emphasized in the mainstream media, use certain stories of the text as near-literal guidebooks while disregarding others. They've picked and chosen while claiming to take the whole canon literally. Those of other and no faith traditions as well as those within Christianity with different views, are arrogantly dismissed by these so-called fundamentalists. 


This is not the way I experience the Divine.


The arrogance exuded by "fundamentalists" is not a fundamental of the Christian faith. It is not the way I and many other Christians experience the Divine nor is it the holistic message of the Bible. Drawing upon the Christian scriptures and my experience of God, the Divine is one of extravagant love for all peoples whether they are inside or outside the church.


In your posting, you pick out one characterization of God. You imply that the characterization of God in the Bible is consistent. It is not.


The inconsistent characterizations of God makes sense when you realize that the scriptures were written by different people in different eras. The theologies and stories within the Christian canons, give us a glimpse of those people's experiences and perceptions of God, not necessarily the full or true nature of the Divine. 


However, if the biblical text is looked at prayerfully, historically, culturally, and holistically one finds the stories of ancient forebears who become more inclusive over the centuries. In the New Testament alone, particularly the gospels and epistles, the Good News of extravagant love is first just for the Jewish people and later expands to Gentiles. 


Christians do not hate women. Some so-called fundamentalist Christians draw lines between insiders and outsiders and neglect the one fundamental of following Jesus: a love so extravagant that it overcomes even death. This extravagant, ever widening love is for all peoples. It is in the spaces between us, it is within each of us (the Imago Dei), and it is reflected in creation.


God of Wholeness,


Open our hearts,
   our hands,
      and our arms;


That we might use them,
   to be extravagant lovers of all humanity,
      of all of creation,
         and of You.


Amen. 

Step 1: Coexist?

I received several comments--both here and on Facebook--about my post yesterday. I wrote that the Coexist bumper sticker makes me bristle a bit. I muddied my main point by introducing a side note that distracted. For that reason, I offer this clarification. 


My core problem with the message that various religions, faiths, or spiritual groups should coexist, is that coexisting is not enough. We need to be actively engaged together where we have commonalities. For example, most religions or belief systems have a variation on what Christians commonly call the Golden Rule:  In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets (Matthew 7:12 NRSV). The Muslim holy text is similar, Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself (Fortieth Hadith of an-Nawawi, 13). The Buddhist writing, Udana-Varga, 5:18, also has a variation, "Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful." Baha'i, Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Native American spirituality, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism each have variations in important writings. What would it be like if we worked side by side with our interfaith kindred in bettering the world which we all share?


Perhaps as one commenter suggested simply coexisting may be an improvement on the current state of affairs. She probably is right. Coexistence is a good first step and may be the place to start. I have a bigger hope, however. I believe our interconnectedness makes it possible for us to be actively engaged together in making the world we share a better place.

Coexist?

You've undoubtedly seen them. The bumper stickers with one word: coexist. That word is made up of the symbols of various faith groups. Well, I bristle whenever I see one of them. Yes, the sticker bothers me.


For those who don't know me, you may think you know why I don't like it. It's unlikely you do. 


I'm not an exclusivist. I do not accept the interpretation of John 14: 6 that insists there is only one path to the Divine. After all, the author of John was writing to people in a specific time, culture, and place far removed from the twenty-first century. My experience of the Divine is of one loving energy/power/entity that is in relationship with all of humankind. The Divine is within and between all of us. We each interpret our experiences of this energy/power/entity within our own experiences and that of our communities.


So what is my problem? 


It's not that I don't empathize with what the sticker says to so many people. Of course people are fed up with the sins of the church and other religions. As humanity we do indeed seem to be able to find ways to mess up.


My problem is simple. Human beings are entwined in a tapestry of relationality that precludes coexistence. We couldn't coexist if we tried. Coexistence implies that we  do not influence one another. It implies that what I do has no bearing on my Muslim, Hindu, or atheist neighbor. Of course, it does. Everything any one of us does influences in subtle or not-so-subtle ways every other living creature on this planet. 


I've dabbled with "collaborate" as a better word for a bumper sticker. There are advantages to this word but it probably doesn't quite capture the essence that begs capture. I've played with other words and phrases, too: shalom, interact, be one, and relate. Even "love" has connotations that not everyone would understand on a bumper sticker.


Maybe I will one day come up with the perfect bumper sticker word. In the meantime, I will continue my journey of striving to love my nearby and far-a-way neighbors. I will try to remember that who I am influences them and that who they are influences me. We are one, we just don't act like it much of the time.