A bump for The emerging Church!

Hello Arminius......God bless you......

I enjoy your book discussions.........

I do agree with what was said.....Discipleship means "disciplined spiritual growth.

Christians are Disciples of Christ and not member of a church club....

Both well said and meant.....amen and amen....

Do you ever think a time will come when the church congregation is nothing but the Love of God.....that would be awesome.........?

Praise Jesus, He is the Truth, the Way, the Light
IJL:bg

Arminius,

How do you want us to tackle this? On a page by page basis.. or by taking a look at the whole enchilada with individual answers send in an a piecemeal basis, or by waiting for the deadline, at which time we post our completed product? My own preferrence is the latter, asign me time and allow me to work till the deadline.At the deadline I;ll post my project and go on to read your next chapter.

This is the first time I have participated in a project such as this. Please give the newcomers some material to work with. Thank you

Panentheist.

Hi Panentheist: I thought participants would read the entire CHAPTER THREE, perhaps make some notes while reading, and then comment on what they think is most noteworthy, or discuss what they particularly wish to discuss, or comment on the some of highlights I posted, as bygraceiam just did. Anyone may, of course, comment on anything we've covered so far, from PROLOGUE to CHAPTER THREE.

paradox3 will take over from me after CHAPTER SIX, perhaps she'll handle it differently. She, like you, is an old hand at book discussion. For me it is a first. When we get to the end of the book, paradox3 will probably post a summary, and then we can discuss the entire book.

I think Bruce's book is of extreme importance to all congregations wishing to emerge, and ultimately to all of humanity. As bygraceiam just said, it may eventually lead to all of humanity discovering the Love which is God.

Panentheist: I just realized that I misread you. So you too are new to this. Well, as the song says, we'll work it out together :-)

Arminius, Thank you for your responses. That's all I needed to know --- for now. Will be back shortly with something more substantial.

Ciao.

Panentheist

My first read of Chapter three had several things that stood out for me. The first was contained on pages 51 & 53.
p. 51 There are functional non-negotiable elements of an emergent church.
p. 53 the Bible itself is a library book that has been subject to an evolutionary process. The models of God and the statements about God's purpose it contains shift over time according to the evolving consciousness of the writers.

I would add also the evolving consciousness of the readers.
I take from this that the bible is non-negotiable but the interpretation is. This I can live with. I would not agree to a singular interpretation as being a non-negotiable. It is important in dealing with change, the emerging church, that when inviting new people into the church community that we do not drive out the older present congregants. We are dealing with different generations and different ways of interpreting the bible. The differences need to be dealt with compassion and acceptance.

Tsakani,

You wrote:

{ I take from this that the bible is non-negotiable but the interpretation is. This I can live with. I would not agree to a singular interpretation as being a non-negotiable. It is important in dealing with change, the emerging church, that when inviting new people into the church community that we do not drive out the older present congregants. }

Excellent points! I really like the idea of non-negotiables that leave room for interpretation. Determining the non-negotiables for a congregation seems like a crucial first step for any kind of renewal.

Maybe we need to think about our personal non-negotiables as well. For me, they would be:

- the centrality of Jesus

- the bible as the sacred story of our tradition

- faith in the reality of God - - a reality that is not a projection of ideals or a human construction

Thanks for the conversation.

Arminius,

You wrote: { paradox3 will take over from me after CHAPTER SIX, perhaps she'll handle it differently. She, like you, is an old hand at book discussion. }

Thanks for your confidence in me. I will be happy to host the discussion from CHAPTER SEVEN on.

... paradox3

Tsakani: Yes, of course, by "biblical literacy" Bruce means that our interpretations of the biblical mepthors evolve along with our consciousness and everything else. I think this is also the principle of Process Theology, wherein theology is an ongoing, continuously evolving and open-ended process, but based on the wisdom tradition of our faith.

Tsakani: You write "We are dealing with different generations and different ways of interpreting the bible. The differences need to be dealt with compassion and acceptance."

That's where the Spiral Dynamics come in, the topic of CHAPTER FIVE, which was a real eye opener for me. It points out the stages of spiritual evolution, and to the fact that the earlier stages form the necessary foundation for the succeeding ones. Far from discarding the earlier stages, we see them as necessary and envelope them.

I confess that I was guilty of mild contempt of the earlier stages of spirtuality, but now I realize that they were and are necessary to get us where we are today. This gave me the compassion and acceptance for those who are still implicated in these stages.

But I'm jumping ahead. More about this fascinating CHAPTER FIVE when we get there!.

paradox3: I like your new logo. Will you now change your name to paradox8 :-)

Yes, I'll be handing the reins of this book discussion group over to you after CHAPTER SIX. So--be prepared! :-)

I agree with your personal non-negotiables. I previously thought that biblical literacy would not be one of mine, but I changed my mind.

The centrality of Jesus would certainly be my number one non-negotiable. But biblical literacy follows naturally, because the New Testament is the story of Jesus, and understanding the New Testament requires understanding the Old, so the Bible as the sacred story of our spiritual traditon is my number two non-negotiable as well.

I fully agree with number three. Faith in a spiritual reality that is not an abstract human idea but a real reality would definitely be one of my personal non-negotiables.

I have to sign off for today and go into our garden to gather a few bunches of Zinnias for the opening of our wondercafe.live! We've been busy for the past few weeks turning our church hall into a cafe, and tonight at 7 pm is the Grand Opening! Tonight will be a free-for-all on their visison for our community--short speeches, ten minutes or less--on future wondercafe.live! evenings we'll accept designated speakers to make more lenghthy presentations on any topic of interest, similar to the discussion lounge of our www.wondercafe.ca here.

I'll be off to gather Zinnias and grind coffee. I'll post a blog on our wondercafe.live! in a few days.

Arminius,

LOL @ paradox8!!!

You wrote, { I confess that I was guilty of mild contempt of the earlier stages of spirtuality, but now I realize that they were and are necessary to get us where we are today. }

A few years ago, when I was still at West Hill, we studied Deepak Chopra's book, How to Know God: The Soul's Journey Into the Mystery of Mysteries. He described 7 different ways to know God. Interestingly, he did not present the stages as a hierarchy. He said that the stages built on each other, but that we need all of them at work in our lives.

Hmmm... Maybe I will go back and give it another read.

The emerging church - Prologue!

This being my first contribution about this book and having been invited to start --- wherever ---, I ask you to consider two issues: a) I read that we have "permission" to be creative, and b) that we are invited to exercise that creativity to demonstrate Christ's presence in the world. A third consideration, that resonates strongly with me, is that we should shift our mindset from a redemption-centred paradigm, focused on original sin, to a creation-centred paradigm, focused on original blessing. (p15) The importance of these observations will become clearer as we go along.

Come to think of it, I am shifting the third consideration to the first spot. I do so to indicate that in MY opinion the position from which we start is of the utmost importance. To work any of this out would take too long. An alternate approach might be to obtain Matthew Fox' book "Original Blessing". However, that might be the next book on our list of inquiry.

With regards to the "permission" to be creative and the invitation to exercise that creativity, consider the meaning and gravity of the word permission and the import of the stated invitation to exercise and develop our talents. All I want to do at this time is to draw your attention to the stated focus of the author on the "world of Christ" in which we live.

The reason I make a fuss about this is because I am having difficulties with the use of the word Christ! Being Christian, I am very familiar with the Trinitarian formula, yet, I keep having to struggle with the "figure" of Christ and its function. So here. Read and contemplate the position we are placed in by the author in our pursuit of our functions.
Example: (p15) As stewards of the Holy One's treasure, we need to make an honest assessment of where we're at, and then be bold about reclaiming the abundant life (Christ) offers.
Q: what is this identity/individual that offers us abundant life? I was always under the impression that we are dependent on the grace of God (rather than Christ's). That being the case, what is it that we are supposed to be promoting? etc, etc, etc!
Shalom!

Panentheist,

You wrote:

{ The reason I make a fuss about this is because I am having difficulties with the use of the word Christ! Being Christian, I am very familiar with the Trinitarian formula, yet, I keep having to struggle with the "figure" of Christ and its function. }

In this book, Bruce Sanguin uses the terms "Christ" and "the Christ". His meaning for these terms is not entirely clear to me, and I am not sure if he is using them with different intent or interchangeably.

On another note, have you been able to identify your personal non-negotiables? I would be interested to hear from you (and others) about this. Perhaps the question will warrant a separate thread at some point.

Yes, paradox3, I fully agree. Although the stages are built upon each other, they are not hierarchial. We need all of them for the building to stand!

A church with only a steeple is not possible. We need a solid foundation, we need a basement, and the first and second floor and the roof in order to put the steeple on top. If anything, the "lower" levels are more important. If the steeple collapses, it is relatively easy to replace. But if the foundation crumbles, then the entire bulding collapses, and needs to be re-built from the ground up.

It is pointless and wrong-headed for the steeple to be contemptuous of the lower levels or the foundation. It seems even more foolhardy to attempt to discard them altogether, as Gretta Vosper proposed in her book. But then perhaps she figured the Cathedral of Christendom isn't worth renovating, and needs to be torn down and replaced.

Panentheist: Bruce probably meant to say that we have to give ourselves permission to be creative. Chronic imitativeness has plagued Christianity for far too long!

Yes, when Bruce mentions "Christ," it is not always clear whether he means the person of Jesus, also known as Jesus the Christ, or the spirit of Christ, or the Cosmic Christ, which I take to be the spirit of cosmic unity, and which Jesus obviously perceived and preached. In this meaning of Christ, "Christ" would be the same as the spirit of God. (That Christian Triple Paradox can be confusing, eh, paradox3? :-)

If "The Father and I are one" is regarded as an expression of the Christ spirit, then everyone who has attained that level of awareness is a "Christ," and striving for the Christ awareness would indeed be the goal of every Christian, just as the attainment of Buddhahood is the goal of every Buddhist. The striving for Christ would then be a metaphor for striving to experience our innate divinty or godliness--and live up to it: Discipleship!

Read this and went on --- till --- I came back to it because I am not sure that this is a possible approach. This is what was said:

"Excellent points! I really like the idea of non-negotiables that leave room for interpretation. Determining the non-negotiables for a congregation seems like a crucial first step for any kind of renewal".

I am an old union man and I wonder if I could make this work. Either it is non-negotiable or it is not. If it is, then it is the law and is "carved in stone!", and you know what that means.

A lot of folks mourn the loss of the tablets with the 10 commandments. Initially I did too - till I started to see that not having them in our possession at least provides an opportunity to question and modify them. Take a look at the history of our (United Church) statements of faith (starting in 1925), and it is abundantly clear that they have been anything but non-negotiable.

On second thought, it is mainly for those reasons that I have to opt for an open approach to our non-negotiables..

Comments?

Shalom,
Panentheist.

Continuing on the topic of things that are carved in stone, or, as we say, are non-negotiable, I have for some time made the argument that the "Canon" (all the books in the Bible) should be opened upin order to give the current generations room to make additions as their understanding of the relationship God-Humanity expands.

Shalom,
Panentheist.

Well, Panentheist, I'm a Zen Buddhist New Age Christian, and I pine for Zen Buddhism, wherein one just meditates until one is enlightened, and then just acts intuitively and directly from the depth of one's enlightenment.

The Christian equivalent of Buddhist enlightenment is the kingdom (kin-dom) of heaven. The pursuit and attainment of the kin-dom, and acting directly from the conscsiousness of the kin-dom, would be my primary mission and my hard core non-negotiable.

In the medieval Grail lore, the price for getting the Grail is that the Grail gets you. The Grail, to me, is a medieval metaphor for the kingdom of heaven: when you get the kingdom, then the kingdom gets you--mind, body, and soul--and from then on you act on behalf of the kingdom.

This is true discipleship, and this would be my hard-core mission and my basic non-negotiable.

When we discussed CHAPTER THREE at our congregational book discussion meeting, we arrived at somewhat of a consensus on our non-negotiables:

1.) The centrality of Jesus (meaning that we regard Jesus as our foremost guide, teacher, mentor and sage, but on par with other, similar world teachers, and no more divine than we are, but more aware of it, and bringing us the message of our divintiy)

2.) Jesus' core message of finding "the kingdom within," and acting from the consciousness of the kingdom, as our primary mission and purpose, upon which our discipleship is based.

The belief in a spirtual reality as a real ontological reality, not an abstract human idea, is so obviuosly contained in the above that we found no need to expliclty state it.

We did, however, not arrive at a consensus on biblical literacy. Jesus taught to the illiterate. Literacy in the Jewish scriptures was not a requirement for attaining the "kingdom of heaven." Quite the contrary. From reading the New Testament it seems obvious that those who were learned in the spriptures were less likely to attain the kingdom.

In our age of litercay, however, things are different as they were in Jesus' time. We decided to further discuss biblical literacy as a non-negotiable. Moreover, we will run the whole concept of "emerging" by our congregation in a wondercafe style service sometime this fall, and find out what they think.

Hi folks,

Thought I should add my two cents, since I wrote the book. I just want to say how delighted I am that the book is generating discussion. If I can help to clarify anything I'll keep checking in and following the thread.

As for Christ and "the Christ", more often than not I distinguish Jesus of Nazareth, from the Christ. It gets pretty metaphysical at this point, but my own belief is that Jesus of Nazareth was transparent to, and an expression of, what I call Christ consciousness or Wisdom - which I understand to the the divine milieu out of which all of creation emerged and in which all creation, geological, biological, cultural, participates to varying degrees.

I probably slip from time to time - not being a systematic theologian, although I haven't checked my own writing closely enough.

Bruce

On the matter of non-negotiables, I can see why it is causing a slight reaction.

These, of course, will be different for every congregation. My point is simply that if is part of an emergent Christianity or a progressivist Christian spirituality to be able to self-define.

All self-definitions will be transcended and included at higher levels. But I am concerned by some postmodern attempts to redefine "church" which are called "progressive" but which to my mind have lost any core Christian identity.

Again, this Christian identity is itself evolutionary in nature - it seems to me that, for example, if I were to stop wrestling with the teachings of Jesus as they come to me through all the layers of tradition, I would no longer be identifying myself as Christian. There is a bottom line.

Bruce

Hi Bruce! Welcome to wondercafe! We are so glad you joined us!

Whether you referred to the person of Jesus, or to the Christ Spirit, when you wrote "Christ" did not confuse me, but it confused others. After all, the two are inseparably linked, and can be used interchangably, although this is not always deemed politically correct by progressive Christians.

We realize and appreciate that you wrote this book not only for progressive Christians, but for all Christians, and for the purpose of conciliation between the Christian Left and Right, so that we all may emerge together.

Your Spiral Dynamics were a real eye opener for me. I used to be mildy contemptous of the earlier levels of spiritual evolution, but no more.

The non-negotiables are, of course, to be determined by each congregation. But if we want to remain identifiably Christian, then we have to retain a solid Christian core.

Our congregational discussion group decided on the centrality of Jesus Christ and his mission--the "kin-dom" of God--as our basic non-negotiable, our solid Christian core. (I read your Darwin, Divinity... and rather like this modern version of "kingdom")

We did not (yet) come to an agreement on biblical literacy. though. Scriptural literacy seemed not to have been one of Jesus' non-negotiables. In fact, he was at odds with those who were learned in the scriptures of his day. But, as I said on a previous post, times have changed, and we are a literate and literary society. Biblical literacy may indeed become one of our non-negotiables.

The Open Table, symbolic also of unconditional love and acceptance, open doors, open hearts and open minds was one non-negotiable we immediately agreed on.

We hope to hear from you again when discussing future chapters, particularly the spiral dymanics, which were a tremendous eye opener for me, and I am sure are for many others.

Drop in again anytime,

Hermann, a.k.a. Arminius

Booeysang,

Hello, and welcome to our discussion here on wondercafe. It is great to have you with us.

You wrote,

{ But I am concerned by some postmodern attempts to redefine "church" which are called "progressive" but which to my mind have lost any core Christian identity. }

Gretta Vosper is writing about distilling the Christian faith down to its core values of love and compassion. In With or Without God, she quotes other authors who argue that humanism (religious or secular) is the logical next step for Christianity in its evolution.

Gretta also presents the idea of non-theistic gatherings, and offers many examples of prayers and liturgy in this vein. Non-theistic gatherings are said to be radically inclusive, in that they can meet the needs of those with theistic, non-theistic and secular perspectives. I am guessing that Gretta's non-negotiables would be the "life-enhancing values" she frequently advocates.

I think you are right when you say it must be left to each congregation to determine its own non-negotiables, and I think the United Church umbrella has room for Vosper's theology. But for the life of me, I cannot see how this strand of progressive christianity differs from Unitarian Universalism. I am also baffled by why Gretta and other authors feel the need to recreate something which already exists.

Paradox3

Hey Arminius,

I have been thinking about this today... (Friday is my day off work)

You wrote,

{ Scriptural literacy seemed not to have been one of Jesus' non-negotiables. In fact, he was at odds with those who were learned in the scriptures of his day. }

What do we think were Jesus' non-negotiables? He was definitely at odds with the religious leaders of his day, but he does not seem to have abandoned his faith in God or his identity as a Jew.

seems to me that the messages from A and c3 contain the answer we are looking for but don't see because of our training. AFAIAC, the answer has become that each one of us, under all circumstances, has to make the human decision on how to proceed.

We keep looking at Jesus and wonder what he would do. Well, he is dead and in no position to tell us anything. I am not being funny or sarcastic here, but it occurs to me that we have to grow up and make hard decision, one way or the other. The Bible tells us: When I was a child, I thought like a child and acted like a child Now that I have grown into manhood I think like a man and act like one (I hope). We find ourselves in a time and situation where everything is transforming rapidly. We have no other option but to step up to the plate and to decide on whether to swing or whether to bunt or whatever --- with nobody around to to wisper instructions in your ear. The batter acts and lives with the consequences.

Visit the tread on eutanasia in the social column. I am in that position. My bride of 53 years is in a LTC facility and is dying. I spent many hours a day with her. Are the circumstances such that I have any sort of companion ship with her? No!

Now don't get mopey here. This is life and it is my turn to deal with it. While I do so I see man other around her going through the same situation. It has become clearer and clearer that the ball is in my court and that the time willl come where folks will look my way for a dicision - one way or the other.

Again, don't go mawkey on me. Look it in the face and act to the best of your ability. Meanwhile, hope and pray that your friends and family members will be around to give you support. We will all go through this process and deal with it.

Was this on topic? I think so.

To conclude - we have been taught by our parents and family. Afterwards we struck out on our own and continued our education. By having the discussions we are having on this board, we lean --- What? I learn that my strenght and support comes from the living God, the God who supports meand encoourages me without fail. With that support and encouragement I move forward and act to the best of my capability. In the meantime I have learned thatmy friends and neighbours are there with their own strenght and encouragement. And when it is over for my wife? I will cry me a river, but then I know that she is still safe as she is still in the care of God.

Blessings all.

Panenteist!

Hi paradox3: I fully agree with Bruce when he says on page 51 that the kingdom within definitely was Jesus' non-negotiable.

Yes, Jesus was a believer in God, and a Jew (though not a Christian) but his unorthodoxy would have landed him in hot water with both Jews and Christians. If his saying "The Father and I are one" defines both Jesus' relationship with God, and the kingdom within, then this would be regarded as highly unorthodox, heretical even, and perhaps even satanic--then and now.

So, to get Jesus away from the suspicion of satanism, he had to be deified. Instead of heeding his core message and divinizing ousleves and the world around us, we divinized only the messenger, and left ourselves in the mud.

If, as most progressive Christians believe, Jesus was a natural albeit divinely inspired human, then his saying "The Father and I are one" could be all-applicable, and interpreted to mean "The Father and WE are one." This, to me, is the insight of the kingdom within. It is, however, a mystical insight, and every one of us has to experience it for oneself, in their own unique way. To foster that experience, and act on it, would then be Jesus' an our primary mission.

Anyway, if the kingdom within is indeed Jesus'--and our--number one non-negotiable, we should define it. I just did, but this is only my personal definition.

What is your definition of the kingdom or kin-dom within? And I don't mean just you, padox3, I mean everyone out there.

paradox3: Hello again. I just realized that I shortened you name to padox3.

Perhaps there are three paddocks for the flock, and we have to go through all three of them to attain the kingdom :-)

And, of course, the kingdom within, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven--they all mean the same to me, and probably to Jesus as well.

"Rejoice, and be glad, bessed are you, holy are you,
Rejoice, and be glad, yours is the kingdom of God."

Hi Peter: Well, scriptural quotes can't be relied on, either; for every quote there seems to be a contradictory quote. Your quote from 1 Cor 13 could be offset by Matt 18:3 "Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

As you said, we have to make the hard choices ourselves, and there is no-one whispering instructions into our ears. But prayer, meditation, music, and turning inward in quiet contemplation can help.

When I was faced with the possiblity of my own imminent death during a severe illness in 1992, classical music was a great solace to me, particularly Beethoven and Mahler. The German poet Friedrich Rückert wrote the famous Kindertotenlieder, which Mahler later set to music. Rückert lost is his two daughters at the tender age 10 and 12 in the same night to meningitis, and consoled himself the next day by writing his "Kindertotenlieder" ("Songs to be sung to the deaths of children")

How can the sun rise so beautifully,
As if no disaster had happened last night.
But the sun, it rises for everyone;
The disaster befell only me alone.

In another of these songs he tells himself:

I must not think myself into the abyss;
I must immerse myself in the eternal light!

I cried a little when my beloved granddaughter left home to go off to university the other day. I don't even want to think about my teenage sweetheart and wife of 45 years leaving me forever. I would cry my eyes out, to say the least.

Although you told us not to get mopey, the tears are dripping off my nose as I read about the situation you are in and write this. I am truly sorry about your partner. This is something everyone hears about, and hopes it will never happen to them, but it does. My sympathies, thoughts, and prayers are with you, but they may not help much. Perhaps some of my words do.

What you said was definitely on topic.

In Unitive Love,

Hermann

Hello again, Peter:

I just remembered that I especially liked to listen to Beethoven's 5th Symphony when I was near death. You know the familiar eight opening notes: Da, da, da, dum; da, da, da, dum (death knocking at the door) But the answer to that knock is not sadness but jubilation, because the same theme changes into notes of jubilation right after the initial, solemn and sepulcheral knock.

Anyway, I have composed a poem on that:

DEATH KNOCKING AT THE DOOR

Come in, my liberator,
Come close, beloved friend.
I have anticipated you with longing.
Come, take me in your cold arms,
And kiss me with your icy kiss,
And bless me
With your bitterweet communion.

-Hermann Harlos

I also wrote my own epitaph (just in case :-)

I wrote for you, before I died,
Before my heart stood still,
My final verse of poetry,
Last words to mark my will.

Although the cruel tyrant, time,
Delivered me to death,
My mind remained serene, divine,
Until my final breath.

My friends, do not feel sad for me,
Do mix your grief with joy:
My trials didn't trouble me;
My death I did enjoy.

Because I AM eternally,
I lived, and died, in ecstasy.

-Hermann Harlos

A mystic's death is a wedding with eternity

-Rumi

Time to get a new guy/person into this discussion before Aminius dies before our very eyes. I too am glad that you, Bruce, have joined this. I have not read the whole length of this thread, but I am doing the REAL book discussion with Arminius at our Church, so I want to add my concerns. Keep in mind that all I have read is the first 4 chapters.

I worry about anything that appears to move towards fundamentalism - where there are these doors you have to squeeze into to find the freedom inside indeed is surrounded by 4 walls that have been painted, not for your eyes, but for those of the painter. It reeks of the smell of EGO. How's that for metaphor?

When we establish our Committees and groups, as the action components of our governance Board, one of the most important tasks is to define our "limits and boundaries". These are areas that we do not step outside of. They provide safety and do keep us focused on our Mission. "Thus far and no further...," is the message. Within this very large area with few other rules, the Spirit is nurtured to grow from within, like a seed to a flower (and back to a seed). No one has to tell the Spirit how to grow, but It needs nourishment and permission from the mind (logic) and body (emotion). Nevertheless I am used to the adventure of just allowing things to emerge in this way. When it is suggested that someone somehow choose a body of "the elect" (elders?) who are going to decide on a set of non-negotiables for our Church as we emerge together, I begin to feel uneasy. It is not an uneasiness about change (we can never grow without it) BUT...... it sounds a bit like setting limits with toddlers, prepubescents and adolescents as they go through natural developmental stages that seem to have their origins in their very genes. Do we really need such "benevolent dictators" for us to emerge as a Church? I have seen the Spirit move when silence is at its deepest and there is no prod or push at all. I might want to say "Thus far and no further..." (like "Please, when the Spirit moves you, don't get so passionate that you lose control of your body), but I am not so sure I want to be told what I MUST do to express my Spiritual growth as a Christian. Indeed, it feels like there is a touch of old fundamentalism in the tone of these non-negotiables, whatever "they" decide them to be (for us). Are your roots showing, Bruce?

Now I realize I do not have to buy into Canadian Memorial's emergence as directed by its elect. I might not choose the Bible (both books) as my study guide at all, but a series of other sources, eh? And because I AM a Christian who does not CHOOSE to believe that Christ was any more the son of God than I am, and CHOOSES to see the ressurection as a metaphorical happening, I just might be told to hit the road. Then I could set up my OWN Christian church (I follow the teacher, Jesus, who taught me that God is LOVE) and do my own Ego-driven non-negotiables, etc. This is how churches might move into change and end up breaking up instead of breaking down. This is why so many fundamentalist churches divide up into 'sides'. This kind of fear comes over me as I am 'led' through the chapters. A lot of things I agree with, given the givens, but I am not sure that the Spirit in our Church needs such a wisdom council to be guided into emergence.

I understand from my somewhat radical friend Arminius, that soon I will spiral and THEN I will feel better. I will try not to close my mind, but I want the doors left open. I LOVED your previous book, Bruce, and the concept of co-creation, although not at all new, is wonderfully liberating. I am like a doubting Thomas around this one, however, because it is too prescriptive. It does not flow logically somehow. It seems like you saw an end to achieve and worked backwards. I have this Spirit within. I need a firm foundation, surely, before I build my house, but I don't much like those doors that have the potential to slam, either in my face to keep me in, or in my back to push me out. Not a great feeling so far. This is not, however, a feel-good exercise, but about GOVERNANCE. I keep having to remind myself of this. Hmmmm........ Yet Governance is always driven by Mission/Vision and all of this is driven by Love (God in action). Shouldn't the process of growing and emerging feel more loving? Why don't I feel the nourishment and nurturance flowing through my chi-ways (so far)? Oh well, I shall be patient and wait for the spiraling - perhaps this will bring on the passion of love.

Yes, LumbyLad, the Spiral will spiral you up and out of your mortal existence, over the top and away :-)

You will emerge like a butterfly from its chrysalis--and fly!

But can we take our concregation with us in this flight? I doubt it.

But maybe we can inspire them to spiral a little higher. Every litttle turn helps. Each turn upward is success and progress. Even if they don't spiral higher, just making them realize that their position on the spiral is good, and constitutes the necessary foundation for further evolution, is success.

The basic and fundamental stages of spiritual evolution are necessary stages of spirtual growth, but they can become dangerous and hinder further growth if believed in absolutely.

As you said, the danger is absolutism--by the leader as well as the followers.

Your blessing (and promise!) is encouraging, Arminius, but not too hopeful.

When we live our lives dependent on metaphor, I fear we may lose our way. I am a human being, not a butterfly and perhaps we need to look to what is around us for our direction in emerging. Butterflies are good but rather like angels. When we remove doctrine as the centre of our truths and side-step the extremism that lies buried in the cultish nature of the mystic tradition, we are left, as you say, with our "fundamental" experience, if you excuse the use of this word. Actually we also have to avoid the use of the word "our", because it is 'my" fundamental experience of the Spirit that must form the core values and beliefs that I hold.

Growth usually starts in the centre and grows outward. We start as "pure Spirit" as newborn infants, move through various developmental stages - all the while layering the 'meaning" or truths that we have gathered as important values to us. The Church provides a gathering through which to celebrate our growth and a unique place to meet people who share (at least) the assumption that we are more than just Body (emotions) and Mind (reason), but also Spirit (God). If the Church could see itself as a social gathering of people who want to grow from the inside-out by discussing the mystery of Love (God), there is hope. We must all realize that we carry our "religion" within and it is personal and likely different in detail from everyone else. To arrive at the commonalities that we share is the Church's challenge. All of this talk about the Church being the "Body of Christ" may be eoquent, and I am not against metaphor, however it is when we stray from our concrete experience into the world of metaphor that people get lost. This is why the Bible has little meaning for many people who hunger for a place to discuss the "fundamental" meaning of life.

If Jesus were seen more as a teacher and guide and less as a supernatural entity, Christianity would be freed up to grow. Some may still hold onto their belief in "the Son of God", the Ressurection, the Assention, Transfiguration, etc. but we would share one value - that we are all on a journey of tolerance and love - to share our spiritual experiences and come up with some ACTION that represents what our Teacher told us to do - in Love.

When, as Bruce Sanguin does in his book "The Emerging Church" (a handbook for the new emerging Christian), we attempt to grow from the outside-in, there is a basic danger. Non-negotiables contain us within fundamental and required beliefs and actions. We MUST study the Bible. We must see Jesus as the Christ, etc. As I said, I have no problem with establishing boundaries and limits on our task ("this far and no farther"), but this does not restrict our belief systems.

Basic psychology has taught us our complexity as human beings. We are all individuals who are always growing (emerging) through our various stages. Its seems to happen naturally. This developmental growth may be, in fact, the model for our emergence as a Church. Stages of group development (sociology) also has a lot to teach us in this area. These disciplines are not based so much on facts but on observations and patterns of human behavior and emotional development. "The meaning of life" is a subject of Philosophy as well. To attempt to use outside sources as evidence for our truths, however, is risky. Why? Because we can be lured to grow from the "outside-in". We need no evidence but our own experience to begin a social discourse on what we hold in common. If the Church provides this without judgment, I believe that we will be DRIVEN by the Holy Spirit to grow and emerge, quite naturally. We then empower ourSELVES, from looking within for our truths.

I am not against using other external sources to give added-value to our personal experience of Spirit. We must, in my opinion, be very careful, however, to believe in the natural power of the Spirit (which is called Holy) to empower us to emerge (as we should). We do not nourish emergence through elitist reading or solid intellect, but by basice trust, honesty, authentic self exploration & expression, and tolerance & compassion towards others. We have to start somewhere, and these are basic psychological truths which appear to work to make us healthy. The Church should borrow these "foundational" beliefs and take off from there.

This is not a secular humanistic movement, as a basic belief in "Spirit" is that one "requirement" (non-negotiable?) that would draw us to a Church rather than a self-help group. I believe there is hope for the Church if this basic formula is followed. What think you all?

Hi LumbyLad: Yes, I agree. If Spirit is not our foundation, our basic non-negotiable, then we aren't spiritual. However, the experience of Spirit rather than a basic belief in Spirit would be even better.

The experience of Spirit does, of course, always result in some kind of explanation or belief system. But does a doctrinal belief system always result in an experience of Spirit? I think not.

The experience of Spirit, to me, is Jesus' "kingdom within." I would make fostering the experience of Spirit, and acting from that experience, my most basic mission.

There is, of course, a need to articulate ones experience of Spirit. But the explanations should alaways follow the experience, and be constantly renewed by the experience.

By the way, The Bruce will conduct an Emerging Church Workshop on Nov 1st in Pentiction. Cost $25.00. Lets carpool and go!

Hey Arminius:

I will join you in the Penticton trip to see Bruce Sanguin. It should be very interesting.

You place "the experience of Spirit" as your mission and see this as "the kingdom of Jesus within". I understand this Biblically. The gift of the Holy Spirit, however, preceded the Bible being written or the appearance of Jesus as the great Teacher.

As I said, although I am in favour of setting limits and boundaries around a defined emerging Christian church, I would not go as far as you in what you mean by "the experience of Spirit". You are leaning towards a mystical kind of experience or awareness that places Jesus as the King of Kingdom. This is a Biblical interpretation and we need to be careful about mixing metaphor with what is historical fact. I kind of like Bruce's Kin-dom idea better. I do not see Jesus as anything more than a great man with a great message. You want me to make him divine. It is, for me, not HIS kingdom at all, but God's. We do not have to work at having an experience - it lies within us from birth. Indeed, we might speculate that the newborn baby is the closest to pure Spirit that we will ever experience in ourselves. We all HAVE experiential Spirit within us at all times. This is not a mission to strive for. It is given in abundance. It is enough.

All that would be required is a recognition that we are all interconnected by Spirit - the same Spirit - the God within. This is the foundation of emerging as Christians or "a Church" (a group of Christians). The process of emerging is THROUGH defining our Mission, which is ACTION, not having a kingdom of Jesus within. It works from the inside-out (as I said above). The so-called non-negotiable would simply be our common recognition that it is the Holy Spirit which drives us onward and that we embrace the (very scant) teachings of the great man, Jesus. The issue of whether Jesus was God or the son of God, was ressurected, died for our sins, is that doctrine that you rightly point out gets in the way. I am a Christian who is willing to discern Spirit. I am willing to experience and listen for the "right" way for Spirit to interract with my Body (emotions) and my Mind (reason) to produce "Christian behavior". Jesus points the way: God is LOVE. Discerning what is loving is our Mission. This means what ACTIONS are loving and deserve to be called "God's will".

Using such a model for emergence has the advantage of also including other religious people who also believe in Spirit but have other teachers who teach about love. Ultimately emergence becomes larger than just a Christian movement, but a spiritual movement that allows other religions to join in. If the focus is on "the Kingdom of Jesus within", it is restrictive. Jesus taught that God was the God of ALL people, not just the Jews. He would say today that God is the God of all people, not just the Christians. Our emerging Church is larger than the Chrisitan Church. It is about all people. When groups of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. gather, it may be called a 'Chruch'.

I have not read the whole book. Is Bruce restriting this governance model to just the Christian Church? It appears so, with a slightly fundamental twist that I perceive. I think God's kingdom is greater than this and emergence can be greater that the restricted movement he seems to present. We are all linked by Spirit. We are in the process of co-creating with God. If we wish to emerge from beneath the weight of Doctrine, why are we limited to the Christian way?

What do you all say?

Hi LumbyLad: I agree with what you just said; it is all contained within the metaphor of the "kin-dom," and is part of Tier 2, the emerging Tier of the emerging Spiral.

The Spiral Dynamics, the topic of CAPTER FIVE, which will be next on our congregational discussion group, are pure genius. Then you will understand why Bruce comes across as a bit of a fundamentalist earlier in the book.

The Spiral Dynamics and What Colour is Your Christ, the topic of CHAPTER SIX, are the best part of the book. I can't talk about it on this thread, because we aren't there--yet.

I too look forward to listening to Bruce and meeting him in person on Nov. 1st. in Penticton The Penticton congregation recently split in two, and Bruce's book, particularly the two abovementioned chapters, teach us how such splits could be avoided.

"We are all linked by Spirit. We are in the process of co-creating with God. If we wish to emerge from beneath the weight of Doctrine, why are we limited to the Christian way?"

"What do you all say?"

Lumbylad,

As you noticed you really belong on the thread by Arminius. However, given the topic I wanted to respond to, I choose to do it this way.

You said:

"We are all linked by Spirit. We are in the process of co-creating with God. If we wish to emerge from beneath the weight of Doctrine, why are we limited to the Christian way?"

My response is that we are not so restricted. My perception is that we only "seem" to be restricted as we are restricted by our upbringing and conditioning in the family we come out of.

More and more people are becoming aware of the fact that many of the concepts we thought were Christian in reality are known in many other milliues.

For an inclination, visit my website "shekinah-jwh.ca" and find Project 2000 in the left column. Good luck

Peter

LumbyLad:

You wrote, { All that would be required is a recognition that we are all interconnected by Spirit - the same Spirit - the God within. }

Would you say that this "non-negotiable" is the factor that makes your vision of church different from Unitarian Universalism?

UU's, of course, are non-doctrinal and they are open to any spiritual stance which is consistent with the Unitarian principles. The principles have been well-defined, and are currently under review in the United States. I am not sure if the Canadian group intends to review them as well.

UU's are values-based, and welcome atheists, secular and religious humanists, agnostics, and so on into their congregations

LumbyLad, paradox3, and Panentheist: Yes, we all are connected by Spirit, and we all are Spirit of the same Spirit, but every one of us is also a unique Spirit being, and each denomination and, in fact, every congregation is a unique cultural Spirit being.

There is nothing wrong with being Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or any other faith, or no faith at all. IF, however, we want to be distinctly Christian, then we have to define ourselves as distinctly Christian. Not because Jesus was any more divine than we are (only more aware of it) or in any way superior to other world teachers, and not because Christianity is in any way superior to other world religions, but only because it is our tradition!

I could just as easily be Buddhist as Christian, or belong to no religion at all. But I see great merit in organized religion, and I love and value our Christian tradition, and would definitely want to define myself and my congregation as distinctly Christian.

Love of tradition is not traditionalism.

Arminius,

You expressed that beautifully!

It is so interesting to follow the conversation between you and Lumbylad, because I know it is also happening in real life. It points out to me that it will not necessarily be easy for congregations to determine their "non-negotiables".

You and Lumbylad seem to want to "extend your arms" as widely as possible, and I know you are thinking of some of the New Agers in your community. This is commendable, of course, but the approach also has its pitfalls.

Taken to the extreme, it produces a congregation like West Hill United Church, where the bottom line is its focus on "life enhancing values". On one of the WWG threads, Rev John observed that this tends to shift the theological spectrum rather than expand it. West Hill has certainly attracted many new seekers, but it has also lost some of its long-standing members.

Thanks for the conversation. I look forward to continuing it as we work our way through Bruce's book.

Yes, paradox3, there is a big debate "raging" between LumbyLad and me and a few others within our congregation.

I want to attract New Agers to our congregation, but I also want us to remain distinctly Christian. No New Ager I ever met opposed the teachings of Jesus, and this is the common ground where we and the New Age community could meet.

We will, in the not too distant future, be holding what Bruce calls a "World Cafe" in our congregation. We, of course, will call it "Wonder Cafe."

The "World Cafe," as well as "Vision" and "Mission," are topics of CHAPTER FOUR, which I will introduce soon. But not today, because we'll be at a Green Party Rally this afternoon and have a wondercafe.live! session in our church hall in the evening. And tomorrow all day we'll be in a United Church workshop in Vernon, and Sunday's worship, social hour, book discussion and other discussions usually drag on until mid-afternoon on Sunday. So I'll probably post CHAPTER FOUR on Monday morning.

I like the Yiddish word "shul" for synagogue. "Shul" means "school," and that's what our Sundays are: worship, social, and school. Our women do, of course, put out a yummy church lunch, and there is plenty coffee and tea to make us last through all that discussing and learning. LumbyLad, Wally, and I often sit there and continue talking long after everyone else has left :-)

hear, hear for "The World Cafe"

All in favour, say aye, all against?

Always liking the last word, I am not a "New Ager" and I once attended the Unitarian Church in Vancouver for several years and found it wanting.

It is, I feel, not just how we interpret The Spirit Within, that ties us together as one belief system, indeed with the whole cosmos, but we also have our own individual psychological needs. Mine are for something close to "family". My little congregation at Lumby United Church (about 25) have become this "spiritual family", where I can meet in focused discussion to share our struggles with a defined faith.

Although I have stretched the relationship with God beyond the Christian boundaries, I found when this was done in the Unitarian Church, I was less connected to people. We celebrated every holy day of every religion in every way. The focus of discussion groups was some vast intellectual topic that left me working so hard that I lost my connection with these people. I do not think that all religious denominations dissolve into one Spirit-Union (yet), for there is much to be said for having a particular focus on one teacher per group. Then we can discover how much alike we are, but continue in our persuit of our "favorite" teacher. It is like choosing a mentor to follow.

I do wish that the United Church quickly dissolve the declarations of faith that were cemented in 1925 and would take a motion in Parliament to dissolve them. I wish only that we create a new harmony that recognize what we have in common, not what differences we have.

Lord save me from these New Agers, particularly the fundamentalist ones.