A tension exists between the responsibility we owe to our own families and to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers (Matthew 25:31-45).  According to the gospels, Jesus had nothing positive to say about natural families.  He repudiated his own mother and sisters and brothers in favor of his new family (Mark 3:32-35).  Then he extended this concept of family to those most in need - the sick, the hungry, the stranger, the prisoner.  People have a natural instinct to look after their blood relatives.  This “kin altruism”, as it is called, appears to be genetically driven.  Jesus challenged his followers to widen their circle of concern to take in all human beings.

Jesus experienced God in a profoundly intimate way as the “Parent of all of creation.”  As a result of this extraordinary relationship it seems that Jesus, like others who have had such experiences, had a clear vision about the interconnectedness of all life.  As part of that reality, Jesus recognized every human being as a child of one God.  For him, one’s identity began and ended by simply being God’s child.  Any other identifying factor was secondary to this truth and likely a distraction (e.g., family, wealth, status, position).  As a child of God, every human deserves dignity and justice regardless of status in this world.  Anything less would be an affront to God or sin against God.  Because of this interconnectedness of all life, suffering or injustice to any of God’s children means ultimately suffering or injustice for all.  This unique understanding of reality led Jesus to what John Dominic Crossan calls, a “radical egalitarianism”.

The Buddhist tradition teaches that when one can have the same compassion in one’s heart for all sentient beings that a mother has for her child, then one has achieved enlightenment. Marcus Borg points out in his book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time the word for compassion in both Hebrew and Aramaic comes out of the same root word as “womb.” He suggests that this would imply that the intention was to “feel with” the same kind care and love that a mother experiences for her child. It seems clear that this common understanding of compassion is no coincidence. For those special individuals who have experienced such a complete sense of connectedness to the “Other,” that depth of love for others would be a natural byproduct. The question is how can we have such a profound experience of that connectedness that might break open such compassion in our hearts?

One way to have that experience is to practice compassion in sacred communities, where gather to “practice” living out Jesus’ teachings of compassion. We all would be better served if we learned that our practice of compassion was an opportunity and not an obligation. When we begin to live our lives as a child of God; when we practice living, breathing, modeling and teaching compassion in a community that does that out of a love for life, God and each other, something changes in us. Sometimes when we begin to live a life of compassion we too may have a profound experience the interconnectedness of life. We may even begin to feel with the compassion of a mother for her child.

The disciple of Jesus then would be someone who perceived and identified himself or herself as a child of God and related to others with that perspective. The church, as a spiritual community, is then a place where followers of Jesus’s seek to live out this relational model with God and each other.  It is both a place and an attitude which can foster ways to appreciate and share one another’s gifts and talents in a common effort to serve the world.  Historically those in the church have been called to find communally the perspective and the courage to confront the injustices that always surround us, to seek healing, and wholeness in the world, to provide hope where there may have been none.

One of the challenges of progressive Christians is to recognize and acknowledge the complexity and contradictions in the highest of ideals, such as peace and justice.  Can peace and justice be achieved at the same time?  Totalitarian governments, for example, can enforce a “peace” but almost always at the expense of human rights and of justice for many.  Libertarian governments might enhance justice and rights for individuals, but the price could be social chaos. It is too easy to get caught up in a particular cause with self-righteous indignation and loose sight of the unknown consequences of your actions.

We must therefore struggle with the meaning of “justice” or what we mean by “just” in the context of our understanding of life.  Karen Lebacquz, a well-known Christian ethicist wrote that the concept of “justice” is complex and difficult to pin down but that “human justice can never be separated from God’s actions.”  She writes in the same book that although justice may be an ideal that is difficult to define or categorize, our understanding of “justice must begin with the realities of injustice.”  (Justice in an Unjust World, 1987)  These issues are made no less complex with the reality that correcting a past injustice can often cause an injustice for innocent people.

Progressive Christians are willing to engage the tensions of these ideals because we admit to the limitations of our perspectives and have faith in the mysteries of God’s creation.  We dare to engage the ambiguities with compassion because we suspect that God’s truth is somewhere in the midst of them.

1. What does the term “community” mean for you?  When does a group become a community?

2. How do we equip one another and restore hope in an intentional faith community?  How is this different from other organizations?

3. How did Jesus seem to define “justice’ by his words and actions? What did those things have in common?

4. What are the different ways that one might define the word “justice”?  “Injustice”?  How can enforced peace infringe on the justice for others?

5. What do you believe the church’s responsibility should be in confronting injustice in the world or in your community? Why?