My impression has been is that the emerging/progressive churches are trying to do precisely what he's talking about.  They don't claim to have new truths or originality, at least in my experience (maybe some of them do, but those are likely overstating their case), but are, to paraphrase his words, seeking a deeper understanding of the principles. In their view, however, some traditional doctrine is not part of those principles but gets in the way of that deeper understanding and the real principles are to be found by going back to the Bible with a more critical eye. Again, no claim of originality (this is pretty much how Protestant Christianity started, after all), but definitely an effort to go deeper. That said, as a UU, my understanding of what's really happening (vs. what I read as happening) may be incomplete.

Mendalla wrote: My impression has been is that the emerging/progressive churches are trying to do precisely what he's talking about

So there hasn't been a sense of "something missing" in what you've experienced of the movement(s)?

Thanks for this. I hadn't read it before, but I agree with it.

As to your thought of "something missing" - absolutely.  I think it stems from the inability of the church to agree on what the "deeper truth" is its trying to recover. Which is not surprising for inclusive churches like the UCCan, or similar churches in other countries.

They end up trying to offer things like ES in ways that don't upset the entrenched "righteous remnant", or they go totally in the other direction ala Gretta Vosper, who can even church "with or without God".

Once someone identifies and names and finds the catalyst that galvanizes the people to accept (the last being at least as important as the former two), the "something missing" will be resolved.

And before Geo (with  the sockpuppet Snip) or IB jump up and prove my point by prattling about it being "GEE-Zuzzz", that's not it boys.   Christ may be the answer, but GEE-Zuzz is part of the problem.

David

Today is Pentecost Sunday, and I just returned from a meeting at a congregation that I've been attending. Their minister is retiring, and they were presenting their JNAC efforts to find a replacement. It was, for me, a perfect example of what concerns me about "the emerging paradigm" as they called it. The pitch was smooth and the logic (if you've already bought into that pardigm) was seamless. It goes something like this:

Like it or not, folks, we are in a climate of change.  Declining church revenues, failing attendance, an aging building, an aging senior population, and a lack of appeal to young families simply cannot be denied. (A series of pie charts are then presented which confirm the facts regarding the members' age ranges, length of membership, contributions, satisfaction ratings, etc...)  Therefore, we must create an environment that is going to produce the kind of growth that we need to keep the doors open before the old people (who are paying the bills) die off. The status quo is no longer acceptable.  So, the conclusion is obvious. Our new minister must be someone who is on board with all of this.  He or she must have a 'track record' of effectiveness in attracting young families, while retaining existing members.  He or she must be able to produce "contemplative type" and "seeker type" alternative worship services.  He or she must have an aggressive (sic) approach to marketing in the surrounding community.  He or she must be able to cultivate welcoming attitudes not just toward traditional, long-standing members, but toward all of our potential customers (sic) in this post-Christian era. He or she must have an "emerging spirit theology" (sic). He or she must be open to considering alternatives to traditional church community for those youth and others who would prefer to be in "constant electronic communication" rather than just on Sundays.

I left thinking to myself, "Be careful what you ask for..."  and wondering if this  one-dimensional franchise I'd wandered into was real or was I in fact watching an episode of The Outer Limits. What's missing???  The emperor has no clothes for God's sake!!!   Where exactly does the Mind of Christ get plugged into the formula, or has that algorithm not been figured out yet, or is it just unnecessary for the particular kind of success now being sought??? 

Veni Spiritus!  And come quick!

rishi,

For me, the "something more " that is missing is honesty.

The reality is that we cannot get the serious type who tells killer jokes, the silent type who enjoys to talk, the tall short person...

We want the same old same old and to claim it is new. It seems we still have that blame or give credit to the minister thing (arm of God they are) Clergy are not gods. They cannot wander in and wave a holy wand and make it all better. When it falls apart, it is not usually on only their shoulders. We have the "we are all ministers" and "where is the clergy?" thing happening.

Our thinking is still emerging, it has not emerged. We are stuck in between.

We want full collections plates, renovated buildings, pews filled to overflowing... all the while talking about it not being about money, buildings and "where two are gathered". 

 What are we doing it for? Our church, our denomination, our attendance... or for God or because it is the right thing to do?

It is wrapped up neat and with a pretty bow, but it often still has that old message.

I have more patience for old school than emerging. With old school it is what it is. Emerging is well, still something, not sure what it is, but it is emerging...

I think we are working through and the language we do not really embrace or have not for some time, we still use, the result is many people asking "what do you believe?" and many more times than should happen people going "well, I don't know..." If we do not know what we (individual or collectively) believe.... what the teaching is, then how can we teach? How can you create disciples? We, far too often don't, we create members and adherents... all the while saying that is not what it is about.

Church historian Diana Butler Bass says the emerging paradigm could just as easily be called the neo-traditionalist movement. Her book "Christianity for the rest of us" looks at how congregations who are intentionally teaching the practices of the faith find new vitality. www.practicingourfaith.com

The JNAC synopsis you offer is looking for a person with a certain magical set of techniques which will 'fix' the church's problems of decline. They don't get it. They are not emergent- they are just the last of the dinosaurs who don't know how to evolve.   It doesn't say what the church thinks of prayer, discernment, hospitality, or what God is calling them to become. Such a church is looking for a saviour- it is not looking for someone to seriously engage them spiritually, theologically or missionally. 

James, I wonder if part of the problem is the Joint Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) process.  JNAC is the closest most congregations come to "discernment" at an organizational level (strategic planning in the corporate world).  The problem is this congregational discernment process only happens "between" ministers.

That creates problems and limitations.  First, because the JNAC is really about finding a minister, all strategic planning gets funnelled through this lense.  That is, the minister is the strategy to any identified goals.  Second, because the JNAC happens between ministers, the minister-pastor is never part of the discussion and discovery of congregational discernment. (In fact, someone else's minister-pastor is part of the conversation, or perhaps an interim who is, by design, exiting.)

Relating this to rishi's point above, the JNAC encourages the "new" minister to be the innovation.  Nonetheless, credit is due the JNAC described above.  At least they are trying, within the parametres asigned them.  I'd love to read an Observer ad that says something like, "Our JNAC report recommended that we call a minister who can motivate us to do another visioning process within the first two years of the call -- and then triennially beyond that."

Which leads me to another complaint, that the triennial pastoral oversight visit could serve as a catalyst for congregational planning.  But it doesn't. 

Brad

Wishing for the sun and moon is normal when you're looking to replace a minister has always seemed to be the norm to me. I'm now attending 2 congregations that are searching, one being the one that you're talking about, the other being my UU congregation. The process is slightly different in UU'ism vs. the UCC, but in the end, it's about defining your ideal clergyperson, then refining that down to something realistic. The problem isn't with what they're wishing for, it's that they don't really define who/what they are clearly enough to do that regining. They are presenting a series of problems that they face rather than a definition of who they are. Is that a problem of the emerging/progressive movement in general or just this congregation? Not sure, because I haven't really spent a lot of time in other "emerging" congregations.

FYI, rishi, I get really mixed vibes from them after attending services there for a couple years. A lot of their literature sounds very appealing on some levels, but their liturgy is surprisingly traditional. I mean, the worship committee's annual report talked about finding way to reflect a "panentheist" view of God in their services (I define as either pantheist or panentheist), yet all I hear in church is fairly traditional Trinitarian language in a very traditional liturgy. Are they "progressive" or "middle of the road traditional" or somewhere in between? Damned if I can tell.

One thing that I think worked well in my UU congregation was that our recent strategic planning process was not related to a ministerial search, and therefore informs the search rather than tied to it. We initiated a Strategic Planning Task Force (similar to a JNAC, but defined by us rather than by any higher level body and therefore with no outside members) before our last settled minister even resigned. Their mission was not focussed on ministry but rather on management, finance, and governance. Because the minister resigned just as they were being empanelled, they did end up discussing ministry somewhat, but their focus was much broader and much of what they recommended is going to be in place by the time we have a minister. Had she not resigned, she would likely have been involved in the process and certainly our interim ministers have been heavily involved in the implementation of the SPTF's recommendations. From the standpoint of search, then, we're not looking for the minister to be "the" innovation, but will be seeking a minister who will fit in with what the SPTF found and recommended.

Brad- I agree the JNAC process is flawed. Plus many of the questions they ask are constraining instead of opening up. One question asks if the congregation prefers 'biblical preaching'- as opposed to what? Non-biblical preaching? This famous survey also asks the congregation to rank how important administrative work is- it always gets a low score, yet what congregation can survive if the minister cannot do basic organizational tasks comptetantly.

Some better questions to ask the congregation:

Are you open to different styles of preaching- thematic, topical, experiential, guided meditations, Q&A, powerpoint, etc?

Are you open to different worship styles- folk, storytelling, rock, multimedia?

Do you want a minister who will challenge & encourage a sense of discipleship by promoting

• the practice of daily Prayer
• Worship
• Bible Reading & study
• Service to God and To Others
• Giving - Time, Talent, and Treasure
• Encouraging Others to Grow

How is your congregation living out these six marks of discipleship?

How are you seeking a deeper missional connection with the larger community?

What spiritual practices are your congregation intentionally sharing?

What social justice causes are dear to your heart?

Congregations are sometimes agents of grace- describe a time when your congregation blessed someone by your grace-filled actions.

Congregations are imperfect- sometimes we are judgemental, exclusionary, or mean. Describe a time when your congregation failed to live up to the gospel and what you learned from it.

(these last two questions are a response to the question often asked of a minister in the interview, to spell out their strengths & weaknesses)

StevieG wrote:

For me, the "something more " that is missing is honesty.  <snipped > ... many people asking "what do you believe?" and many more times than should happen people going "well, I don't know..." If we do not know what we (individual or collectively) believe.... what the teaching is, then how can we teach? How can you create disciples? We, far too often don't, we create members and adherents... all the while saying that is not what it is about.

ok, I'm adding your "something more" to my "something missing."  But I'm wondering how deeply we ever understood the spiritual language that, as you say, we're still using but no longer embrace.  If that's the case, then, maybe the "something" that is missing for me (which is a depth of spirituality) was never there in the first place for those who I'm now giving such a hard time because they just don't get it.   Kind of like chastising your friends when you see them down the street for acting so incredibly immature in relation to one another... but, then, as you come closer, you realize that it's their kids dressed up in their parents' clothes.

To be honest, I think that's a bit unfair. If our complaint is that they're dinosaurs who "don't know how", how can we then complain when the process that they come up with reflects that?

Quite frankly, these types of things have often seemed to carry an element of desperation on the part of the congregation. i can almost hear some of them saying - "Okay! We get that we don't get it already. So send us someone who gets it, for Christ's sake."

To which the reply is something like what the levitating monk told the man who requested a demonstration - since you don't get it, we can't show you. duh.

When does the church corporate start equipping its newly minted clergy with the tools of the "emerging" paradigm so that when you emerge from the theological college/seminary you can engage in the process? Is it doing that? Including the tools to encourage/engage a righteous remnant like the one rishi describes? (honest question, I'd like to know)

Could you describe the "Mind of Christ" rishi? Are you looking for it in its many various forms, or just the one you've come to know yourself?  (a mistake I've made myself) What would have needed to be there to satisfy your criteria? Did they, like the folks Jesus rebuked, need to stand on a street corner and pray publicly? Call on the Name Above All Names? Specify "Christ-knowing type" in the summary? Shouldn't that be a given in a minister?

That these people have (I'm guessing of course) stayed the course through decades of pot luck suppers, Christmas concerts with sheets for shepherds, a doll for the baby Jesus, and two blushing teens playing Mary and Joseph, not to mention tedious committee meetings, harangues about who gets a plaque on the baptismal font, whether the new (now not so new) church hall, built in the 60s when it looked like numbers would grow forever can go one more year without painting.... all the while remembering when that same hall was filled with wedding receptions and laughter, and sometimes tears when the flood, or the storm or the [name your tragedy] brought all the church women together to cook, and sew and comfort, while the men piled into trucks and cars with boxes of tools to rebuild whatever needed rebuilding.

No one wondered, or even asked, about the Mind of Christ. They were too busy being the Hands of Christ - imperfectly, stumbling on the way, but picking themselves up and trying again next time. The Mind of Christ was what the minister told them about on Sunday morning, that was his gift in the whole thing.

And now they're tired, and they're grumpy, and they don't know what comes next, who to pass the torch to. They do know something needs to change - they may not like it, but they know it. They may not understand how to do it even, and in the end they may be incapable of accepting it. They may die and their church may die.

That will be because they cannot change. It will not be because the Mind, nor the Spirit, nor the Hands, of Christ were absent.

IMNSHO

David

GR- I have been interviewed by enough congregations over the past 20 years and have helped congregations to put together JNACs & JSCs (Jargon alert! JNAC- the Joint Needs Assesment which acts as the Job Description for a new minister, and JSC - Joint Search Committee who actually goes out to find a person to fill said job descriptions) to know that there is a lot of self-unreflective comments and outright lies in most JNACs.

I helped one congregation who said they were "welcoming and inclusive" to understand that was not an accurate statement when they said openly that they did not want a gay minister or gay members, and they were not even willing to have a discussion about whether they would perform same sex marriages.

I knew of one congregation in Erie Presbytery who wanted a minister who would get out of the pulpit and be relevant in their preaching. Six months later the congregation tried to fire said minister because the sermons were 'too close to home' and the out of pulpit preaching was 'too in their faces'.

When will the emerging paradigm be taught in seminaries? When the Practice of Ministry professor or the Theology prof clue in that the world has changed.  When I graduated 20 years ago, the professors were actively arguing that nothing was changing and the  downslide was merely a temporary blip. When my spouse did her theology thirteen years ago, they recognized that the world was changing, but they didn't have a clue what was happening or how to deal with it.  I hope it has gotten better, but I would ask other more recent grads to comment on that.

Most of what I have learned about theology, the practice of ministry, and  everything I know about the emerging cultural context, and being missional, I learned on the job. There is a small handful of Doctor of Ministry program which teaches emergent theology in the USA, but none in Canada.

That small handful is one = George Fox Evangelical Seminary, with Leonard Sweet leading it.

exactly my point, and thanks for making it in a less bellicose way than I did. Most congregations are not equipped to undertake the complicated process that a JNAC represents. After all, when I look in the mirror I see Brad Pitt's twin brother. But try as i might, my ads for an Angelina Jolie lookup go unanswered - I can't imagine why.

Yup. So we don't equip our spiritual leadership, we don't equip our lay leadership, and then we scratch our heads wondering why we don't have effective leadership.

Again, I don't think its the Spirit that's missing. The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is sorely underprepared.

GoldenRule wrote:

Could you describe the "Mind of Christ" rishi? Are you looking for it in its many various forms, or just the one you've come to know yourself?  (a mistake I've made myself) What would have needed to be there to satisfy your criteria? ... Specify "Christ-knowing type" in the summary? Shouldn't that be a given in a minister? ...  ... these people have (I'm guessing of course) stayed the course through decades.... No one wondered, or even asked, about the Mind of Christ. They were too busy being the Hands of Christ - imperfectly, stumbling on the way, but picking themselves up and trying again next time. The Mind of Christ was what the minister told them about on Sunday morning, that was his gift in the whole thing. And now they're tired, and they're grumpy, and they don't know what comes next, who to pass the torch to. ... That will be because they cannot change. It will not be because the Mind, nor the Spirit, nor the Hands, of Christ were absent.

David,

I know that we're very good at doing things that, unlike the Mind of Christ, can be defined more quickly and concretely. And that is one of the spiritual causes of our current condition.  Personally, I've been the most tired, grumpy, incapable of change, and hopeless regarding the future precisely when I've been too busy trying to be the hands of Christ without awareness of the Mind. Maybe in a secular service organization, doing, doing, & doing some more is all that counts, so that cultivating this kind of awareness is not relevant. In the church, it is what both our existence and our relevance depend on; it is not just something the minister might talk about on Sunday. This Mystical Body needs a Head. And, unfortunately, that awareness is not a given in a minister. And, perhaps largely for that reason, it's not a given in the people whose spiritual development that minister is charged with fostering.

Rishi

RevJamesMurray wrote:

Some better questions to ask the congregation:

Are you open to different styles of preaching- thematic, topical, experiential, guided meditations, Q&A, powerpoint, etc?
Are you open to different worship styles- folk, storytelling, rock, multimedia?
Do you want a minister who will challenge & encourage a sense of discipleship by promoting:

• the practice of daily Prayer
  

• Worship

• Bible Reading & study

• Service to God and To Others

• Giving - Time, Talent, and Treasure

• Encouraging Others to Grow

How is your congregation living out these six marks of discipleship?

How are you seeking a deeper missional connection with the larger community?

What spiritual practices are your congregation intentionally sharing?

What social justice causes are dear to your heart?

Congregations are sometimes agents of grace- describe a time when your congregation blessed someone by your grace-filled actions.

Congregations are imperfect- sometimes we are judgemental, exclusionary, or mean. Describe a time when your congregation failed to live up to the gospel and what you learned from it.

This is beautiful. It doesn't at all reflect the mindset of the representatives of the "emergent paradigm" who I've encountered.  As I've said before, I obviously need to get out more.

The emergent paradigm is not politically correct. The labels we use to describe each other can be used as a form of power which keeps  us seperate from one another. Or they can identify ways we are ready to learn from each other.

At a recent Catholic/evangelical emergent conference, Father Richard Rohr asked 'what would happen if we stopped delegitimizing one another and started affirming each other instead?' We all need to get out more.

 The Mind and Character of Jesus Christ

Altogether lovely. Song 5:16

• Holy. Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27; Rev. 3:7

• Righteous. Isaiah 53:11; Hebrews 1:9

• Good. Matthew 19:16

• Faithful. Isaiah 11:5; 1 Thes. 5:24

• True. John 1:14; John 7:18; 1 John 5:20

• Just. Zech. 9:9; John 5:30; Acts 22:14

• Guileless. Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22

• Sinless. John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21

• Spotless. 1 Peter 1:19

• Innocent. Matthew 27:4

• Harmless. Hebrews 7:26

• Resisting temptation. Matthew 4:1-10

• Obedient to God the Father. Psalm 40:8; John 4:34; John 15:10

• Zealous. Luke 2:49; John 2:17; John 8:29

• Meek. Isaiah 53:7; Zech. 9:9; Matthew 11:29

• Lowly in heart. Matthew 11:29

• Merciful. Hebrews 2:17

• Patient. Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:14

• Long-suffering. 1 Tim. 1:16

• Compassionate. Isaiah 40:11; Luke 19:41

• Benevolent. Matthew 4:23-24; Acts 10:38

• Loving. John 13:1; John 15:13

• Self-denying. Matthew 8:20; 2 Cor. 8:9

• Humble. Luke 22:27; Phil. 2:8

• Resigned. Luke 22:42

• Forgiving. Luke 23:34

• Subject to His parents. Luke 2:51

• Saints are conformed to. Romans 8:29

Perhaps, but you didn't answer the question - since you apparently know the Mind of Christ, at least well enough to know those people didn't have it, please enlighten me as to what it looks like.

Evangelicals think they know, that's why its always so easy for them to tell others they don't have it. Jesus had an answer for them in Matthew.

Let me help a bit by offering my own observation - For me, the missing "Mind of Christ" occurs when the congregation turns inward, which happens for lots of reasons, but I've never been in a congregation where it was missing because of too few shouts of hosannah - usually its exactly the opposite.

It can be simple fatigue - too few people, too many burdens, no hope for the fututre. It can be internal bickering - when a single person, family, or yes minister, thinks he, she or they should be able to mold the congregation in his/her/their image. It can be lots of things, but I've yet to see it be because of "too much doing."

IBelieve posted a long list of qualities of the mind and character of Christ, the heart of them all being a divine/unconditioned love. It was this very costly love, after all, that was at the heart of his marketing plan, what made him so attractive.

We can develop a way of life that allows love of this very same quality to flow through us, but such love cannot be manufactured. This is the point that should give us pause in our efforts to be emergent or traditional or  liberal or evangelical or contemplative or seeker-oriented or whatever else  we've gotten into our heads that we ought to be.  Otherwise the value of what we become may just be in our heads. And then, though we may become a damn fine service club or meaning makers club or some other kind of club, we cease to be the Body of Christ in the world. We don't have to be fundamentalist to see that this is fundamental. We just have to grasp, or -- better still --get grasped by, the Spirit of 1 Cor 13:1-13 and realize that our "product" in this business is not our own. 

But, although this is the Religion of Jesus 101, if people haven't already learned it experientially (as Arminius emphasizes) by the time they get to seminary, they can learn all the right words and all the right moves, but still, like Martha or the elder brother of the prodigal, be missing that "one thing" which is most important.  Maybe this is why so many of our ministers burn out only a few years after their ordination and leave?  But some don't burn out; they can easily keep on saying the right words, flipping the pancakes, and forming disciples with the same blindspots. 

If the "emergent paradigm" means grappling with these roots of our problems as a denomination, then sign me up.

Rishi

The past is what it was. The words were said and, like GR said, many did not contemplate them. Well, no shit!

At home,there was a leaky roof needing fixed, kids to feed with little food in the pantry, animals to be fed and chores related to keeping them, you turned soil with a shovel or a horse and plow not a tiller, dinner took an hour or two, no microwave, no prepackaged salads or peeled and washed vegetables.... no 500 television channels to watch, no lights after dark....

Then they needed to run a Sunday school, sing in the choir, get to church, make food for funerals, weddings.... have ice cream socials, concerts, pancake breakfasts, hunter's dinners....

By and large, our parents and grandparents devoted their life to church. We, by and large, devote a few hours a week.

I read the old records about all the events they arranged. We do tons less with tons more free time (that si nto free because we fill it with "other stuff").

They had no time to contemplate. They said the words, "because that is what we do".

They will, out of habit... not laziness or ignorance... but just habit repeat without thought.

Many who are emerging or emerged do the exact same thing. They follow the fine type, repeat the bold and never give it a second thought. 

For many who struggle or abandon, it is the language. It carries meaning we do or do not still mean (and they do not know which). Other times,  it carries baggage. Sometimes, it is just archaic or down right painful to listen to.

Only those who it pinches notice. They likely will not even tell you. They will start to read the bulletin as they sit down. They will skip words or whole sentences.... then when they cannot do it anymore they may disappear.

We have to see where it pinches and that is by taking it out and putting it on. Not just looking at it, but putting it on. Then we can see where and when it pinches... They know it when it happens.

As is our fashion of late, a few discuss language after services. All that was said was "the assurance of forgiveness". They looked and saw immediately what others see.

Yesterday, in our assurance of forgiveness (based on 1 Corinthians 12:12-13) the words were "All the members of the body, though many, are one body. So it is with Christ. Rejoice! Your baptsim into Christ is freedom from the bonds of sin. Thanks be to you, O Christ, for baptism, forgiveness and freedom"

They see it. They immediately saw the "bonds of sin" stuff (that some did not even mean) and fully "got it". They went miles in journeying it. They talked about it sounding very much like we are depraved, that it sounds like only through... that it speaks of an atonement theology..... They also saw "the baptized" and the exclusion of some while saying God forgives all and while saying we are all one.

The thing is they were raised to be polite. To criticize is seen as impolite. They need to be invited to discuss. To be invited to be part of the process, that it will be their legacy... they are creating it and are not tearing the other down or criticizing it as it stood.

They usually do not say where it bothers them, and we assume it does not. We often assume wrong and think we are the wiser, smarter, better, more evolved.... we think they are archaic, ill informed, entrenched...

Open up the discussion and you might get your socks blown off. I am surrounded by some kick ass 80 year olds. I find the elderly far more open than some boomers or even some youth. They have no more time for BS or pretending they like something they don't.

Like I said in a faith group... I look at the journey and not the finish line. I started with others having been emerging, my exposure was at least one foot in that plane. I did not do the work, others cleared the path. I followed it. It is like I started a marthon halfway through. They started with both feet firmly in the past. They had to clear the path. That work was not done for them. They were told to "shut up and listen", not to think.

They are my heroes.

StevieG,  I want to ask you:  Was the mind of Christ involved in what you just felt/thought/wrote? To answer me, would it take you to a place you don't want to go? Would it carry baggage or pinch? Would it be meaningful? accurate? embarrassing? impolite? a waste of your time? a portal into an encounter with the divine? Would you rather I not ask?

You still haven't answered rishi.  You felt qualified to judge the people you opened the thread with as not having the Mind of Christ in the material/meeting you had with them. What was it that they should have had or done to demonstrate that to you?

David wrote: You still haven't answered rishi.  You felt qualified to judge the people you opened the thread with as not having the Mind of Christ in the material/meeting you had with them. What was it that they should have had or done to demonstrate that to you

I can't answer what I understand the Mind of Christ to be in a way that will satisfy, David.  I could have alternatively said the "Will of God,"  the "Spirit of the Beatitudes,"  "Intimacy with the Divine,"  "Passion for Holiness,"  "Participation in the life of the Trinity," "Space for the Mystery," the "Love That Cannot Die" or any number of other phrases, but I couldn't nail those down in tangible criteria either!  There's a coherence that was missing for me in that gathering, a coherence that was spiritual in nature; a coherence that goes beyond logic, observable behaviors, and even narrative, all of which were impeccable. This understanding of mine -- about the lack of spiritual coherence in the meeting -- I do in fact judge to be true. Making such judgments, though, is not the same thing as "condemning" -- i.e. judging someone to be morally inferior / worthy of punishment. If you found that sort of venom in my words, I didn't put it there (at least not consciously), and I'm sending you a sacred antidote in the Spirit.

The last two words are the most important.

That would depend on whether you continue to include the two words above, or whether you presume to judge the group for all of us.  To proclaim that a congregation doesn't have the "Mind of Christ" sounds pretty condemning to me.  However, if you sat that "for you" - as in "this group did not provoke the mind of Christ for you" then you speak merely to their relationship with you.

You see my friend, that's the evangelical blind spot - IBby and Sockpuppet Snip and others cannot understand for the life of them how inclusive theology can encompass their perspective without sharing it, since theirs is incapable of acting likewise. So maybe we've moved the question to "how big is this Mind of Christ of yours?  Can it accept the presence of God/Christ in the description StevieG offered? Or can it only recognize Christ if the people "pause" as you put it, and/or make public pronouncements?

Thanks for engaging in the discussion by the way, I appreciate gaining insight into your perspective.

David,

Indeed I do have a different view of the "true for you, but not for me" / "true for me, but not for you" perspective.  In brief, I don't think it's true, other than psychologically.  Because it's just the relativist flipside of fundamentalism. It's still Truth with a capital T; it just hides the capitalization in the subtext, which makes it even more oppressive than its counterpart. It's still playing a win/lose game. And that is precisely what the Mind of Christ will not do, because it does not need to, because it is not a perspective. It is aperspectival, which is why we need it so desperately. It is the only exit from the ad nauseum debates of the win/lose mind. It has reasons that reason does not know. It's wise and compassionate. Look! There it is now!

Warmly,

Rishi

The reason I ask, just to be clear, is because I was very moved by what you said.

And still, as with every evangelical I've ever discussed with, you do not provide an answer to the original question - what was it that these people needed to do to satisfy you, since apparently you are qualified to judge them?

lol - don't worry, rishi, I won't ask again. I just find it funny to see how many times some people will continue to avoid the question.

As far as not believing in inclusive theology, you are welcome to your opinion. I'm rather glad that God does not agree with you. The very last thing this poor old ball of rock needs is a return to a predominant theology of people who thin they have the only answer. We nailed the last guy to tell us that was hooey to a cross.

That its taken us two millennia to even begin to get away from it is tragic enough, to go back to that would be criminal.

David!  Not every question can be answered in the way we would like!  Here's a poem for you:

  THE PENALTY OF LOVE

If Love should count you worthy, and should deign

   One day to seek your door and be your guest,

   Pause!  ere you draw the bolt and bid him rest,

If in your old content you would remain,

For not alone he enters; in his train

   Are angels of the mist, the lonely guest

   Dreams of the unfulfilled and unpossessed,

And sorrow, and Life's immemorial pain.

He wakes desires you never may forget,

   He shows you stars you never saw before.

   He makes you share with him, for evermore,

The burden of the world's divine regret.

How wise you were to open not! and yet,

   How poor if you should turn him from the door!

                              SIDNEY ROYSE LYSAGHT

rishi,

I looked for ways to explain that would be meaningful. I am failing miserably....

Personally, I would not say "the mind of Christ" was in what I wrote. That is from my mind, but my mind does work at times in tandem with my faith (and other times not so well or not in tandem anyways). I would say it was more from my heart. My heart is also based sometimes strongly and other times faintly on my faith.

The "mind of Christ" did not invade my skull when I say something received well, or in the times my own arse shows what does that say about "the mind of Christ"?

Do I think the Spirit of my faith can be found in that? Well, it is best not to ask me but the listener and I am sure it would depend upon the listener. Is the Spirit always found? Nope, definitely not.

Thanks for that, StevieG.  Need to be in person, I think. And, even then, I wonder if some things are best just not spoken of.  My old Buddhist friends now tell me that I'm starting to think like a Christian. My Christian friends say that I'm just using Christian words with Buddhist meanings.  It's hard being me some days.  I thoroughly enjoyed the piece of your mind that you shared with me. Nice and clean. Wish you all the best.

Very poetic

The point I've been making is that I long ago learned better than to judge in the way you seem so ready to qualify yourself as able to. That the people you so easily dismiss as not having the "Mind of Christ" have been faithful for a very long time, in their own way, seems to mean nothing if they don't meet your criteria. You even claimed this right to judge above. "By your judgment be you also judged" my friend.

In the spirit of reciprocity, here's an article for you -

http://seemslikegod.org/lifeandfaith/archives/no-jot-nor-tittle