An emerging bump!

I just finished the Prologue and Chapter One. I certainly agree with the END of where Sanguin is going, but there is a feeling that he is pushing too hard to fit Christianity into a progressive Spirituality model. Every time he brings in Christ as the master of all of this wisdom, I think he misses the boat. See page 22: "Congregations become potential centres of creative emergence when they consciously align themselves with the evolutionary universe. THE FORM OF LIFE THAT EMERGES IN THE CHURCH WILL BE CHRIST-SHAPED" (my emphasis) Throughout, he refers back to Christ by interpreting scriptures the way he wants to. He pushes the boundaries of Science too far: eg. p. 27: "...life is continually in the process of orgaizing itself in the direction of increasing complexity, consciousness, BEAUTY, AND COMPASSION." (my emphasis) Now where is the evidence for increasing beauty and compassion. These are clearly qualities that are NOT objectively experienced like the others, but based on personal experience. I do not see the world as becoming more beautiful OR compassionate, but he may.

I keep feeling that Sanguin has a direction that is true. He has taken a scientific principle of the comos moving ever toward more complexity and applied it to humans, as a natural direction to move. This is OK. Even interpreting how Chrisitianity might change to use this model is OK, but you will find much of this already in the Islamic religions. It is not new. To claim that Christ (man or God?) contained the essence of spiritual wisdom does not fall into place. It works if you just want to go along with the traditional belief in the divinity of Christ, but if you want a REAL emerging Christianity, I would say that Christ was a man, just like all of us, and his words, just like those of many men of the past Century, are a PART of the WHOLE. Throughout there is the tradition assumption that Jesus was the "son of God". Yet he claims that we are "made in God's image". I do hope that later he deals with this. I found his inclusion of Christ as the supreme master of wisdom very distracting. The Biblical Christ does NOT bring to us an emerging Church model. Some of the later writers (Paul) has a sense of this emergence, but the Church, in those times WAS the people and they were clearly disciples meant to spread the "word of God". Doing this may help us emerge or not. Evangelism tends to turn people off today, so we have to look at another model than the one Jesus preferred. So much for his wisdom.

Still Sanguin is offering the Church an opportunity to move closer to Science and work with the principles of science. I should say that much of this is buried in the principles of Psychology too (my field) as evidenced by the developmental stages of the child, adolescent and adult. I am waiting for Sanguin to go BACK and tell me just why Christ is the holder of spiritual wisdom, when this is not my experience. My faith comes from my relationship with the SPIRIT within, which Sanguin calls "the source of this dynamic capacity" (p.22)..."the inner power and radiance at the heart of the unierse, which has a noncoercive, evolutionary bias toward WHAT JESUS CALLED ABUNDANT LIFE." Well I am not sure it has much to do with abundance, but it sure has a lot to do with life. My truth is found in the Spirit within, not in the historical Jesus (did he really even exisit???). Perhaps we can remain "CHRISTians" but give the power to the Spirit within each of us, with Christ as (as Sanguin says) merely an "icon" of our faith experience?

So, what say you, Arminius? Don't you think that he introduced Jesus as the wisdom holder a bit too quickly in this chapter? Perhaps he could have explained just WHY we need to be "followers of Christ" later, rather than pursue a life of progressive Spiritualists.

LumbyLad: Bruce could have written what he did without quoting scripture, and it would be just as convincing, or perhaps more so, particularly to those who are not hung up on scripture and feel no particular need to justify new thoughts with scriptural quotes.

His frequent use of scripture is, I think, to appease the emergent movement under McLaren, which, as Bruce himself writes, "represents the earlier Church but nevertheless seeks a modern understanding of Christianity." I have read McLaren's "Everything Must Change," and was impressed, but became frustrated with the way he justifies every new thought with scriptural quotes.

I think when Bruce Sanguin writes "Christ" he means not Jesus but the "Cosmic Christ" or the "Cosmic Spirit," which he otherwise describes as just "spirit." Anyway, what Sanguin and McLaren are up to would be easier to explain if they kept scripture out of it entirely, and just used modern spiritual language.

Both of them probably feel a duty to appease the more traditional and conservative members of their Church. After all, if we leave scripture out entirely, and use just modern philosophical language, then there is nothing left of Christianity. We would then emerge into a post-denominational interfaith age. But wouldn't that also be part of the Emerging Spirit Movement?

"Anyway, what Sanguin and McLaren are up to would be easier to explain if they kept scripture out of it entirely, and just used modern spiritual language."

- I wonder why it would be better - does scripture have no application in progressive theology?

Oh yes, Meredith, it does. But the same scripture has been used against the science of evolution, in support of a pseudo science called "creationism." Beyond that, scripture has been abused to justify almost anything, including hatred and even bloody murder.

Of course, scripture itself is not to blame for the abuse; the abuser does the abusing. But scripture may have lost a lot of credibility through such blatant abuse. Moreover, scriptural quotes are not necessary to make the points Bruce Sanguin is making. But perhaps to a Christian audience they are.

Co-evolution is not a new or Christian concept. Already in the seventies, the Zen Centre of San Francisco came out with the quarterly publication entitled "CO-EVOLUTION QUARTERLY," in which the concept of co-evolution was exposed and discussed without being supported by either Buddhist or Christian scripture. "The Whole Earth Catalog," which was published by the same publisher in the seventies and eighties, also propagated co-evolution. "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" was the foreword on each Whole Earth Catalog. "We are as gods" is a momentary insight, but "getting good at it" is a lifetime of serious effort, hard work and unwavering dedication. Bruce Sanguin and his books help us to become "good at it," and a little scripture won't hurt. Bruce certainly uses it responsibly. But, beause of all the abuse, scripture has lost some of its crediblity, and may distract from his arguments. And, as I said, scriptural quotes are not really necessary to make the points Bruce is making. But then the book is intended for a Christian audience, and if I write for a Christian audience, I too use scriptural quotes.

LumbyLad: I don't think Bruce introduced Jesus too quickly.

Where and what is the "abundant life" that Jesus promised? Why do so few of us have it? And, if the "abudant life" is a consequence of having discovered the "kingdom within," why have so few of us discovered this elusive kingdom, and what exactly is it?

I think discovering the "kingdom within" and, as a consequence of this discovery, creating the "abundant life" is THE core message of Jesus teachings. This, I think, is what Christianity is, or should be, all about!

What is the emerging Church emerging into? I think it is emerging into the "abundant life" and, in order to do that, it first has to discover the "kingdom within." Thus, discovering the kindom within and emerging into the abundant life is what the book is all about, and needs to be stated at the beginning. The main body of the book then deals with HOW to emerge.

Just to let you know (and not sure why) ... that I'm lurking on this thread and finding it fascinating. Maybe right now I have too much to say, so I'm not saying anything. But this is a great thread and I may contribute later.
Also...I'll email Bruce and see if he wants to come by for a cuppa and hang out some.

LoveJoy: I'm glad you are at least lurking, and at one point may feel moved to participate. I know that you had some input into the book, and probably know it quite well. And if Bruce were to drop in and make a comment or two, that would be tremendous! He'll set us straight when we get him wrong.

I often wish Jesus were around to set us straight when he misrepresent him :-)

lol

I'm following through on that email to Bruce right now...

Thanks, LoveJoy!

We had our first discussion on "The emerging Church" in our congregational book study group today. It went well, the participants are warming up to change, and will hopefully fan their Fire of Pentecost to a brightly burning flame, and pass it on to others.

The dove descending breaks the air
With flames of incandescent terror
Of which the tongues declare
The one discharge from sin and error.
The only hope, or else despair
Lies in the choice of pyre or pyre--
To be redeemed from fire by fire.

Who then devised the torment? Love.
Love is the unfamiliar name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove.
We only live, only suspire
Consumed by either fire or fire.

-From LITTLE GIDDING by T.S. Eliot

Arminius,

The prologue to The Emerging Church is posted on brucesanguin.com - - anyone who is following the discussion and doesn't have a copy of the book might like to take a look at it.

In our congregational book discussion group, everyone first brought up what they thought were the most important points of CHAPTER ONE (some of them had made notes) and then we all answered the questions Bruce poses at the end of the chapter.

I stated what I thought were the most important points of CHAPTER ONE at the beginning of this thread, but I would like to add one more: "Pax Gaia," which Bruce mentions at the bottom of page 35 and at the top of page 36:

"The task of the Church in the 21st century is a creative one--we must play our role in the re-invention of the human being. Father Thomas Berry describes the new age we are entering as Pax Gaia--the peace of the earth. This means not only peace between humans. It also means decaring a truce on the war we have been waging with the planet and with other-than-human creatures. As we enter this new era, Spirirt is involved in equipping human beings for this mission."

Pax Gaia is also known as Eco-Spirtuality, which is looming ever larger as the new spiritual conscience. What helps us to become more eco-spiritually aware is the intellectual and spiritual insight that the web of life is one interrelated and inseparable whole, and when part of the web is torn, then the entire web and all of its beings suffer. Moreover, the insight and experience of the "kin-dom within" compels us to realize that not only our fellow humans but also our fellow beings of the plant and animal world are at-one with us, and deserving of our love and compassion.

Brian D. McLaren is the "prophet of emergence" of the so-called Christian Right. Bruce calls their ermergence "emergent," wheras the emergence of the progressive and liberal so-called Christian Left is "emerging." Anyway, spiritually ecological awareness and responsiblity is the main topic of Brian D. McLaren's new book "everything must change." I recommend reading this book to get a picture of how the Christian Right deals with Eco-Spirituality.

I am of the German post-war generation, and grew up in Germany. Many of us post-war Germans were utterly appaled regarding the actions, or rather lack of action, of our parent generation during the Jewish Holocaust. "How could you tolerate this?!" we asked them incredulously and accusingly, 'You knew what was going on!"

Our children and grandchildren might well ask us the same question regarding the holocaust we are perpetrating against our natural environment: "You knew what was going on! How could you tolerate this?!"

What will we answer them?

I count not only T.S. Eliot but also Shakespeare among my most inspirirational spiritual poets, and would like to conclude this entry with Shakespeare's

SONNET XVII

Who will believe my verse in time to come,
If it were filled with your most high deserts?
Though yet, Heav'n knows, it is but as a tomb
Which hides your life, and shows not half your parts.
If I could write the beauty of your eyes,
And in fresh numbers number all your graces,
The age to come would say, this poet lies,
Such heavenly touches never touched earthly faces.
So should my papers, yellowed with their age,
Be scorned, like old men of less truth than tongue;
And your true rights be termed a poet's rage,
And stretched metre of an antique song:
But were some child of yours alive that time,
You should live twice;--in it, and in my rhyme.

Hi paradox3: Welcome to the discussion, and thank you for the tip!

Because the PROLOGUE says a lot about the core message of the book, reading it will give someone who does not have the book a pretty good idea of what it is about. And, as you probably read, LoveJoy has been trying to get Bruce involved in the discussion. I know he is an extremely busy man, but he might be able to squeeze a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk to us.

To get to the Pax Gaia the church is definitely going to have to move away from the theological model focused on redemption towards a theology of creation (p. 32-35)

I like Bruce's use of scripture, for me it keeps bringing me back to what we are about, God.

Wehave startedthe conversation around tradtion vs traditionalism within the congregation. We are talking change and what that may look like. There is both excitement and fear. Excitement that we may do something new and different and fear of losing thecomfortable. By proceeding slowly there is a willingness to try.

Hi Tsakani:

Thank you for joining our discussion group. Appearantly, Bruce Sanguin is a fan of Matthew Fox, and so am I. Matthew Fox embraced Creation Spirirtuality more than 20 years ago, and the medieval mystic, Meister Eckhart, whom Matthew Fox translated in his book "Breakthrough," embraced it 700 years ago. It looks like creation centered theology and spirtuality is now breaking through to the Christian mainstream on a broad basis.

I am glad that your congregation is talking about change, and, from what I've read by you here on wondercafe, I am sure that you are one of the agents pushing for change. I do in our congregation, but maybe I'm pushing a bit too hard, because our minister has cautioned me to proceed slowly.

Yes, the use of Christian scripture makes Bruce's book more relevant to a Christian audience. Were he to use just generally spiritual language in addition to scientfic language, he might gain more fans among the spiritual community, but perhaps lose the support of the Christian community. I am more broad-minded in that regard than most. My only non-negotiable (about which he talks later in the book) would be spirituality. But then we would leave denominationalism behind, and enter interdenomational spirituality. In our area, where there are more New Agers than Christians, this may not be such a bad idea. After all, Jesus was not denominational. His teachings were doctored and doctrinized after his death, and differing doctrines led to different denominations.

Arminius,

You wrote:

{ But then we would leave denominationalism behind, and enter interdenomational spirituality. In our area, where there are more New Agers than Christians, this may not be such a bad idea. }

This sounds very much like Unitarian Universalism to me.

Some folks who have explored UU have found it to be overly "intellectual" in its focus. Perhaps the spirituality you call your "non-negotiable" would prove to be elusive for you in one of their congregations.

I agree with Tsakani about Bruce's use of scripture. Although Bruce is calling for change and renewal, I read him as very grounded in the Christian tradition. Lumby Lad seems to sense a "forced fit" between some of Bruce's ideas and his use of scripture, but I am not picking that up. Not so far, at any rate.

When Bruce joins us, I would like to ask him if he uses "Christ" and "the Christ" interchangeably, or if he means something different by the two concepts.

... Or maybe RevLoveJoy knows the answer to this question?

Hi paradox3: I embrace Christian traditions, as long as they don't claim any exclusive rights to truth (as they are prone to do:-) I regard all major spiritual traditions as equally valid. If we regard each other's traditions as unique cultural expressions, without claims to exclusive or absolute truth, then we can celebrate each other's differences and traditions, and Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs can attend Christian festivals, and vice versa, as it frequently happens here in multireligious B.C. Some of the religions of the Far East are mutually inclusive rather than exclusive, and many people profess to belong to two or more religions or denominations. I, as a Zen/Sufi Christian, who also dabbles in indigenous spirituality, feel right at home in such a setting.

I have decided to return to Christianity because it is the dear and familiar religion of my childhood and youth, and of my culture, not because Christianity is more true or right than other religions.

Quite the opposite. From having made forays into several other religions, and able to view Christianity objectively, I realize that Christianity is burdened with negative baggage more so than some other world religions. Emerging Christianity attempts to rid itself of that baggage, but we must be careful not to throw out the Jesus baby with the dirty bath water, as Gretta Vosper appears to have done.

LumbyLad was a Unitarian Universalist for many years, but chose to return to the United Church. He may be able to define precisely in what way the UU differs from the emerging UC.

Arminius,

Unitarianism originated as an expression of Christian faith which specifically rejected the trinitarian formula. In Europe, it is closer to these roots than it is in North America. In Canada and the USA, it has moved beyond the boundaries of Christian faith, and is no longer considered to be a Christian denomination.

The UU's honour their Christian and Jewish heritage, but do not have any creeds. They have a set of principles which their congregations (sometimes called fellowships) covenant to uphold.

10 - 20% of Unitarians in North America identify as Christians. Within their congregations, you will find other faith traditions represented, as well as atheists, humanists, naturalists, and so on. They are especially welcoming to GLBT individuals, and attract many interfaith couples.

Bruce Sanguin is not giving me the impression he wants to move outside the Christian trajectory. Emerging Christianity seems to be about renewing the tradition, but remaining within it. He remains grounded in the Bible (both testaments), and still identifies himself as a follower of Jesus.

On page 23, he offers his definition of scientific emergence to complement the work of Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren. As you have already mentioned, Borg talks about earlier and "emerging" Christian paradigms. McLaren represents the more conservative "emergent" movement within Christianity.

paradox3: I heard from LumbyLad that within the Unitarian Univarsalist Church there is a group of Christians calling themselves not "Christians" but "followers of the teachings of Jesus." Appearantly, to them, the two are not the same.

Jesus teachings obviously were spin-doctored, doctrinized and dogmatized over the decades and centuries after his death--and a lot of that was done not for spiritual but for political purposes--so that we no longer know the difference between his original teachings and the spin-doctored versions.

Borg, Crossan and others have tried to distill Jesus' original teachings out of the various narratives and doctrines, and came up with about thirty core sayings that are assumed to have come from Jesus with a high degree of probability. Among them are most of his parables, his sayings about love, and, of course, his core statement about the "kingdom within."

I'm glad that Bruce focuses on this very statement, but amended it to "kin-dom within," which comes very close to the Native bension "All My Relations."

Yes, Bruce tries to stay within the Christian trajectory, but, in his chapter on "non-negotiables," he leaves it open to congregations to decide whether or not to welcome Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Muslims and New Agers as members into their congregations. If enough of them do, then the Christian trajectory of the United Church may become altered or watered down.

Jesus himself, of course, was not a Christian, and not an orthodox Jew. either. He welcomed all people--unconditionally. If we want to be followers of Jesus, perhaps we, too, should to welcome all people--unconditionally--into our congregations. If this waters down our Christian trajectory, so be it.

Jesus seemingly did not worry about retaining any formal religious trajectory, but he adhered loosely to the Judaic spiritual narrative. If we regarded and retained our Christian trajectory as just that, our unique School of Wisdom and spirtual narrative, and chucked the absolutism for which we became (in)famous, and regarded the spiritual narratives and Schools of Wisdom of other faiths as equally valid, then we could have sort of a multidenominational or multireligious spirituality, in the spirit Canadian multiculturalism. This is what I'd be in favour of.

But I suppose all this is a bit premature in our book discussion at this point. Let's discuss this further when we get to the "non-negotiables."

Arminius, You wrote:

{ I heard from LumbyLad that within the Unitarian Univarsalist Church there is a group of Christians calling themselves not "Christians" but "followers of the teachings of Jesus." Appearantly, to them, the two are not the same. }

Interesting... I would think that they are rejecting some of the negative baggage that can go along with the word "Christian". I have heard many people in our denomination express the same concern.

As far as I know, the Christians within Unitarianism are not all alike. I did a search a few months ago, and it was pretty interesting to read about. Here in Toronto, the big downtown congregation has a small group which calls itself "followers of the way of Jesus".

I read that some of the Unitarian Christians feel more able to live out the call to follow Jesus more completely within Unitarianism than within mainline Christian denominations. WOW!!!

Looking forward to chapter 2...P3

paradox3: Yes, the word "Christian" carries a lot of negative baggage. Emerging Christianity is attempting to rid itself of that baggage. That's why we are having this discussion, and studying Bruce's book.

In CHAPTER THREE Bruce writes that he has people in his congregation who profess to be Buddhist AND Christian, Taoist AND Christian, etc., and see no conflict in it. He wonders where this will lead.

But I'm not supposed to talk about CHAPTER THREE--yet.

I'll talk to you, in a day or two, about CHAPTER TWO,

Arminius