Here are a few questions to start us off - -

This one is especially for those who expressed discomfort with Bruce's leadership style back on the Chapter SEVEN thread:  Where do you see the potential for tyranny in the change process Bruce describes?

For everyone:  Do you think Bruce describes a fair process of change?  Would it work for your congregation?

Has anyone experienced a big cultural shift in a congregation?

Hello paradox3............God bless you.......

I wonder why no where in any of the reviews of each chapter does it mention prayer....ch. 5...says consider an ongoing meditation group......that is the closest I see to prayer.....

Anyone who knows God at all knows a church will not suceed no matter what new things you bring into it....or new people leading.......if there is no prayer team...a train intercessing team the church will not succeed.....reading the bible tells us this many times in scriptures....

Having pastors...leading , congregations ....will not work without prayer....everyone who goes to church should be taught....how to pray, praise , worship etc....

One church I attended had no prayer team at all.....I joined in and we  faced the enemy of the church head on.....only the pastor and three of us prayed for the church....we prayed for more prayer warriors who could pray for all of the church...individuals etc....after a few months of praying we had over twenty people in the prayer team every day before we gather....God will show us His Glory and His power....all we have to do is ask in prayer...but without prayer I believe the church does not stand a chance...it is no good to have an angel of the church if no one in praying for that angel....

This church met every Sunday in a High School Gym....now they have a church of their own...free of a mortgage......the Power of Prayer works...I have seen it many times...

Does Bruce believe in the Power of Prayer....and praying for individual souls....trained  in warfare to cover the churches......with Gods Power in Prayer...Jesus is an intercesser who intercesses for all of us to the Father....

John 17....is a powerful prayer that reaches across time and space....lead by Jesus Christ in Prayer......this is just one example of Our Chirst praying for His Church...

I would like to know where you stand in this important point on prayer....amen and amen....?

IJL:bg

Hello Bygraceiam, 

You are quite right, Bruce does not specifically suggest praying over the process he describes.  He mentions prayer casually a few times throughout the book, so I don't have the impression he would be against it.  But you are right, he focuses more on meditation. 

Thanks for starting the discussion on this thread - - P3

I think that my congregation has experienced a big cultural shift over the past seven years and is ever-shifting as we speak. I'm not quite ready to write about it yet, but I hope to one day.

I did not use Bruce's model when I arrived there. Instead, I took a time of spiritual retreat after being with the congregation about 6 months. A "wilderness" time; a time of deep prayer and spiritual discernment. From that experience I formed "ten goals for ten years" - a vision, of sorts. It was not the kind of vision that you share with anyone. Because I was always open to the Holy Spirit to change it at any time, and believe me ~ she has!  I remember sitting out on the balcony of the hotel I was in, in Kelowna - feet up on the railing - and thinking, "how the hell am I ever going to accomplish this?" And it came to me....upon further prayer and reflection...that I am not in ministry alone in this place. I need other leaders, other people who have some of the knowledge that I have as a base (Biblical literacy, personal leadership skills, have read the latest books on church development, trends, ideas, etc. ...who understand gift discernment and small group theory and leadership theory and family systems/conflict resolution...etc.) If only there were a group of people in that congregation who had all that...then the Holy Spirit could come alive in the them and they could theologically articulate both their own faith but also their vision for the congregation.

Sooooo....with another huge challenge being time-commitment in our church, I decided to make the course such that it required huge time commitment. I wanted to see who the committed people were - as they would be the leaders of tomorrow. So I planned out a two-year-long intensive course where we'd read the whole Bible and also read several other books and theories and by the end we would hopefully form ongoing small groups to keep studying Scripture and theologically reflect together and deepen spirituality and prayer life.

There was no hand-picking. I did ask the executive of Council for permission to hold the course and told them I wanted to pray for 10 people. These 3 men, sitting around my kitchen table, said "you won't get 10 people in our church with that kind of time". I said I'd be happy with 3, and 5 or 6 would be a celebration. 10 would be "bring out the bagpipes and drums". They said - go for it - knock yourself out praying. And I said great, but let's start right now. And we prayed around my kitchen table with men who may have never prayed like that before.

I planned the course and prepared exciting promotional materials. Thirty-two people signed up the first year, and I've had nearly 100 graduates over a 5-year period.  People are starving for this kind of thing.

....I won't keep writing my book here....lol

*******

Going back to Bruce's book. As I said, he and I disagree on the "think-tank" and "hand-picking" idea as a method to bring about emerging change. Bruce starts with changing the governance. My idea was to deepen the spirituality of the congregation and give them leadership skills so that they could see, and bring about, the change themselves.

It's interesting to me that Bruce recommends my book in this chapter. My leadership theory is that leaders hold three things in equal balance: self-definition, emotional intelligence and meaningful connection.  I also don't think it's necessary therefore for clergy leaders to come up with the ideas. If you can be a calm, clear, well-connected leader and steady the ship through the inevitable storms, then the people will come up with ideas themselves.

On a brief side note: whether you're calling the shots or simply empowering the people to call their own shots you will be blamed for everything. Both Bruce and I are accused of being tyrannical control-freak dictators by our enemies (meaning, anyone who doesn't like the way things are going/have gone at the church). So that's interesting. It may just come with the territory of being strong, self-defined human beings who move forward in order to make something happen.

Anyway, this would be a great discussion to have....over about a four-hour period in a group live!

LoveJoy, 

Thank you so much for sticking around for the discussion about Bruce's book.  I know you are in the process of tapering off your wondercafe involvement, and will be moving on altogether before too long :(

Back in the spring, I attended two conferences about church renewal.  The presenters were Janet Cawley (from BC, do you know her?), and Tony Robinson.  They both talked about the need for congregations to come to grips with the reality that the age of Christendom is over.  You have mentioned this once or twice on other threads, so I am wondering if you emphasized it with your congregation. 

Or did it seem like people had already grasped the idea?  Here in Toronto, which is both multicultural and multifaith, we still have plenty of nostalgia going on for church life of the fifties and sixties. 

Revs Cawley and Robinson also talked re: getting clear about who we are as congregations first, before going on to deal with renewal.  Do you have any thoughts about this, LoveJoy?

I know Janey Cawley well, although I have to say I'm not overly impressed with her ideas and such. I haven't read anything she's written - just heard her speak. Tony Robinson is AWESOME. I took a year-long leadership mentoring program with him and it was the most life-changing thing. I loved his book about changing congregational culture. His work is based on "Leadership Without Easy Answers" by Ron Heifitz.  Good stuff. Wonderful.

As far as about "getting clear about who we are" - I agree. In fact, once a congregation "goes deep" and really discerns (spiritually) who it is....then they don't have to go out and do x, y or z to try to "emerge" or "renew"...renewal will happen because the Holy Spirit is all about renewal. It's about making way for the spirit to enter and to do her work.

Oh yes, LoveJoy, Tony Robinson was AMAZING!  Janet Cawley gave me a good introduction to some ideas about church renewal, and I was glad I went to the workshop with her first. 

Do you think that "getting clear about who we are" is pretty much the same as "determining the non-negotiables" (Bruce's language)? 

Hi paradox3:

Thank you for summarizing the "MAPPING IT OUT" segments of all chapters covered so far.

I very much agree with LoveJoy; I'd really rather have the entire congregation involved in the process of emerging! In a small rural congregation like ours, this should be relatively easy. Anna Christie's book "EVOKING CHANGE" is a very worthwile read for anyone interested in learning about leadership. We are trying to get her to come up to the Okanagan to conduct a workshop on leadership next spring (when the orchards are in bloom :-) We are also thinking of making her book the subject of our next congregational book study group.

______________________________________

Hi bygraceiam:

If the purpose of prayer is to connect with God, or the Holy Spirt, the Christ Spirit, or the Cosmic Spirit, then meditation serves the same purpose as prayer. In some Eastern religions, the emphasis is more on meditation; in Christianity, it is more on prayer. The purpose of both is to connect with the spirtual dimension, and both seem equally effective to achieve that sacred end, so doesn't matter much which method we employ.

Hi Arminius, 

The core leadership team and the think tank seem to have considerable power in Bruce's model.  It bothers me that the "non-negotiables" are determined by such a small group. 

The process for involving the whole congregation starts with the next step, i.e. providing input into the "mission and vision" statement.  I like the way Bruce maps it out from here.

Hi paradox3:

Yes, I too like the "World Cafe Process," as Bruce describes it. This process could be used for far more than determining the Vision and Mission Statement. It could be the basic process of emergence. A small congregation like ours, with about 40 members, 24 to 30 attending regularly, would be ideally suited for that.

We could do a congregational leadership audit, and harness every single talent in our congregation for the purpose and process of emerging.

Culture shift is happening all around us, whether we like it or not. People who profess to be Christian are an insignificant minority of 20% or less, while up to 80% say that they are "spiritual but not religious." 

Mainstream Christianity has not shifted along with the general spiritual culture shift from organized religion to just spirituality. We, mainstream Christianity in general, and the United Church in particular, have a lot of catching up to do, unless we want to remain an insignificant minority that no longer reflects the spiritual stance of the majority. 

Arminius, 

Hi.  I was glad to read on the Chapter Seven thread that you are doing well.  It is wonderful that you are able to stay involved with this book study.  

In a few days, I will start posting summaries of the material in Chapter Eight.  Looking at the Mapping It Out sections all together (my opening post) has been enlightening for me.  Somehow, I was losing sight of Bruce's process as I read through the book chapter by chapter. 

I agree with you about involvement of the whole congregation early on in the process of emerging.  Even the preliminary questions asked in Chapters 1 and 2 could be taken to a congregation at large.  The difficulty inherent in this approach, of course, is that many folks will simply not be interested in attending congregational retreats, discussion groups, and so on.  LoveJoy's ideas about facilitating leadership development are sounding better and better to me.

LoveJoy, 

You told us a while ago that Gilmore Park adopted the 8 points from TCPC (the center for progressive christianity in the US), and added a point about taking the bible seriously but not literally.  I would be interested to know where in your process this happened.  How did it come about? 

Hi paradox3:

I too like the American Center for Progressive Christianity better than its Canadian counterpart, which has gone way off into the ultra liberal Orange field. Its non-theism bothers me the least, because the self-creative Kosmos as God can be seen as either theism or non-theism, or both. What bothers me about the Canadian Center for Progressive Christianity, and about "Vosperianism" in particular, is that it denies a spiritual dimension to our being, and suggests that spirituality may be nothing more than a human invention. This is secularism devoid of spirituality!

Spirituality would be my only iron-clad non-negotiable. Although I love our Christian traditions, I am not a traditionalist, and everything apart from spirituality would be up for grabs.

I wish we all could see religious expression as artistic. Then we could pursue our beloved Christian traditions to our heart's content, and joyously share them with other people and denominations, and just as joyously partake in theirs. What makes this difficult is the absolutism which is the "disaster" aspect of every stage, from Beige right up to Yellow. I think our main job in emerging is to liberate our religion from the disaster of absolutism, and learn to regard religious expression as artistic.

After all, the ultimate cosmic Creator created us it ITS image, as creators.

The Scriptures say that a church needs to have a prayer team? Can you share some of those scriptures with me, please, either here or by Wondermail? I don't know of any scriptures like that. I think it's great that you support prayer teams, but I don't think a church has to have one.

As for my own little Baptist church that I attend in Toronto, it succeeds pretty well, I have to say, without an official designated prayer team. That's not to say that nobody there prays. We pray throughout the Sunday morning worship service, there is a prayer meeting before the service, the worship team prays before service, and all of our business meetings start out with prayer.

Agreed.

Paradox,

Our congregation's mission, ministry statements, vision, goals and core values were all discerned over a long period of time (at least 3 years) and they continue to be fleshed out with more detail. The Council actually writes them down and agrees upon them, but only after an extensive process involving congregational input. By "input" I do not mean a brainstorming session on specifics, or anything parliamentary where voting is involved. Instead, we use processes of "spritual discernment". You can google group spiritual discernment processes and get a lot of good information on how a group can do this. World cafe is another process we've used (and this was used with our core values/8 ~ now 9~ points of progressive Christianity.) We began with our chair of Council (I think) bringing them forward for discussion, compared them with the *then" 8 points the Canadian PC folks had and then we took them to the congregation at an annual meeting. We had table groups whereby one Council member was at each table listening to the group and taking notes.   Then they came back to Council and we passed them through -with the addition of the one about Scripture.

The thing is, this was not a "change" for our congregation. There was no conflict about them. The 8 points spoke about who the congregation already was. So I wouldn't say that this process could be used by everyone.

Arminius - a spiritual discernment process with a small congregation like that would be an awesome experience. The key is that the facilitator has to be able to do "holy listening" because it's not like an oiji board spelling everything out clearly. What the spirit is saying to the church is there - it comes out through through the process - but  if the facilitator has his or her own agenda at all it won't work.

As an example, I once facilitated a process with a congregational Board here in greater Vancouver. They thought they were going through the process to discern how to move to deeper faith and spirituality...i.e., what programs to start, should they hire second staff, etc. etc.

So as the day progressed at one point I had them walk around outside (we were in a meeting room in a mall). I asked them to clear their minds and simply walk outside, enjoy the sunshine, and take note of one thing that you saw.  Then come back and share with the group. Everyone did this. One person started her contribution with what she thought was a JOKE. She saw a sign that said "don't dump your family garbage here." Everyone laughed, but I was sharp enough to add this to the index cards that got taped up on the wall. Later, I asked them to go put a red sticker on the one card they were just....drawn toward. Not thinking. Just...drawn toward. EVERYONE put their sticker on the card about the family garbage.

To make a long story short, the group realized that the Spirit was calling them to do something about their music minister (long story, private, but I'm sure you can imagine). Only by dealing with this issue could the congregation move forward. And...it has.

Too much bla bla....! But I was just trying to point out that your facilitator has to be able to listen for the Spirit in the process or it won't work.

Hi LoveJoy, 

Thanks for sharing your ideas and thoughts on this thread.  I have just pulled out my notes from the workshop with Anthony Robinson, and have been reflecting on them... 

"Purpose is more important than change", he said.  "In one sentence, why has God called you to be here?"  He said that every congregation should be able to answer this question in one sentence, in simple but compelling language.  

I don't know if this is the same thing as "determining our non-negotiables" (Bruce's terminology) or not. 

Tony gave me the impression that the question needs to go to the total congregation, rather than to a small hand-picked group.

I have lots to say about this subject (I think!) but I'm not sure I can string it all together in a coherent whole. 

One of the things  I want to say is that I have always admired bygraceiam's gentle (yet insistent) spirit.  That having been said, I must also say that she and I live in more or less alternate universes.  I don't usually find myself reading Grace's stuff and thinking. "I wholeheartedly agree!".  Usually, I think something along the lines of "Hmmmmm ... thats interesting ... but I'm not sure I understand why she's saying it".  In this case, though I wouldn't have put it in just the same terms,  I believe that Grace makes an important point about the need for prayer.  As usual I'll say it another way.  I think it is impossible to "go deep" by engaging in an afternoon of "churchified" corporate HR exercises and icebreakers no matter how hard one tries. 

Corporate methods cannot really address spiritual problems.  I think that Bruce is closer to the mark when he talks about using meditation than when he talks about "world cafe".  But I think that Grace is even closer yet when she says prayer would have even greater efficacy.  I think that is because whereas meditation is a sort of emptying of the mind and a cessation of our efforts to change the world through projection of our will into it while prayer, on the other hand, results in a careful and respectful marshalling of our thoughts and our desires combined with an effort to divine the opportunities that may yet exist unseen in the world for us.  In addition, it is a projection of our hopes and dreams that seeks to guide or moderate our relationship with the cosmos ... It is an attempt to align our intention with that of the cosmos.  As such it is an attempt to use spiritual methods to address spiritual problems.  By using prayer we organize our thoughts (and thus the efforts rooted in them) and the world around us at the same time.  If we pray together we also empower ourselves through our unity with each other and with the spirit of the cosmos, God.

Unlike corporate brainstorming exercises,  prayer is slow.  Although powerful, it is not the method of choice in a world where time is money.  Corporations prefer brainstorming over discernment.   You can start in the morning, take a brief working lunch and be done in time to pack up the overhead projector and still make the 5:10 train to the suburbs.  Too, discernment is a personal and private while brainstorming is open and public.   Mavericks can be cut from the herd, opposition isolated, and early consensus (if not group think) created.  All this is just to accentuate a point made above by Lovejoy, namely,  that if you are going to use these methods in churches your facilitator has to be able to listen for the Spirit in the process or it won't work.

This brings me back to Bruce Sanguin's leadership recommendations.  Its an ill wind that blows no good and when one agenda is derailed in a long, and seemingly pointless meeting there is usually another agenda that is being advanced.  The "real pros" don't, after all, memorize The Manual and the Rules of Order for nothing.  Likewise although a corporate brainstorming session may appear to be creating its own unique path, it is often being steered to a preferred conclusion or (just as often) it is running down, familiar and well trodden (if not downright tired and worn out) pathways in the same way water follows the path of least resistance down a slope.  In the face of this Sanguin's idea seems to be that to handpick a leadership team is more honest and forthright  in that it is clear who is steering the ship.  In addition Sanguin's suggestions abandon the pretence of "democracy" (if government by plebiscite can really be characterized as such and not merely "mob rule") in favour of a process that is actually more open and accessable.

Hi Qwerty, 

Welcome to the Chapter EIGHT thread!

You wrote,

I think it is impossible to "go deep" by engaging in an afternoon of "churchified" corporate HR exercises and icebreakers no matter how hard one tries. 

Absolutely.  In both churches and the corporate world (certainly in healthcare) people are getting cynical about these HR exercises and brainstorming sessions. 

You wrote: 

In the face of this Sanguin's idea seems to be that to handpick a leadership team is more honest and forthright  in that it is clear who is steering the ship.

Good point, but I like LoveJoy's ideas about leadership development.

Further to my earlier note, I think I should add that if one is to hire a minister to lead the congregation then it behooves us to "allow the leader to lead".  No leader can lead if she can not select her own team.  The way to defeat any new leader  is to saddle them with a team they have not themselves chosen (and if one is really nefarious) to make sure that every team member represents an "interest group" (read "faction") at the church.  In this light the "handpicking" of the leadership team is only a matter of common sense and good management practice.  If you want to cripple your leader and stifle change, insist that democracy prevail and that team members be elected to represent all church interests.  This will pretty well ensure that the status quo will prevail.

Just to let you know paradox, I am not posting but I am reading everything on these threads. Good Job>

Also lurking....peeking round the corner......also a note to say I can read wondermail but I can't reply in case people think I'm ignorant. When I click reply or compose I get a blank white screen.

I was interested in Lovejoy's comment above:

Hi Qwerty, 

Agreed that many people would not be willing or able to make such a time commitment.  Yet LoveJoy said:

Thirty-two people signed up the first year, and I've had nearly 100 graduates over a 5-year period.  People are starving for this kind of thing.

Granted, LoveJoy has a fair sized congregation.  I noted with interest that she told Arminius it would be feasible (awesome, she said) to do a process of spiritual discernment with his whole congregation.  Arminius' and LumbyLad's congregation has fewer than 30 members, and a part-time minister.

In one of the later chapters of Emerging Church Bruce talks about expecting a great deal from board members, both in terms of time and financial commitment. 

Thanks for that, Crazyheart.

Welcome, Stardust. 

Too bad you have the wondermail glitch :(

Wondermail is so much fun sometimes.

P3/QWERTY

Amen, resistance is all around.  I am about to try and get a large video projector installed in the Santuary.  We shall see how far I get with that.

I am hoping that "Resistance is Futile", however, and that bit by bit the old timers will come around.  If not, then the last man standing "Please turn off the lights when you leave".

IT

Russ

Hi LoveJoy:

Your anecdote was not "too much bla, bla," but very interesting and revealing.

The world around us is full of signs. When we contemplate them, or, even better, contemplate them meditatively, then we sometimes think of something totally new, something that we never thought of before. The same principle applies to ouija boards, Tarot cards, the I-Ching, horoscopes, and other arts of divination. They don't really foretell the future, but they offer a way of seeing and thinking differently. Then we, inspired by that new thought, and gently nudged by the Spirit, employ the new thought in future action, and make the divination into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reading the signs in nature is better than the oracle arts, because nature is limitless, whereas the throw of the I-Ching, for instance, has only 64 possibilites, and can lead us into superstition. Reading the meaning of past and present and discerning the way of the future by contemplating nature is an ancient art, but it really means liberating ourselves from the bondage of old and engrained concepts and thought patterns. It permits the Spirit to guide us into new thought and action. It is an aid to thinking and acting creatively.

I would like the process of emerging to be a congregational creation. The congregation, as a creative entity, is greater than any of its members, or even the sum of its members. The congregation, as a creative whole, transcends and includes its members.

In the Native Okanagan culture and language there is a concept called "Enow'kin." Enow'kin is a tribal creation, created by the tribal whole, with the consciousness of the tribe being an inseparable whole. They have a different word for individual creation, but "Enow'kin" specifically denotes a tribal creation, wherein individual ego-consciousness is subordinated to tribal consciousness. In Enow'kin, the tribe acts as one organism and one mind, as the tribe, on behalf of the tribe, for the good of the tribe. In the terms of Spiral Dynamics, Enow'kin goes way back to the positive aspects of the Purple stage.

Waiting for a saviour to solve our problems is a particlualry Christian handicap. To let some Christ-like figure tell us what to do and solve our problems for us renders us passive and uncreative. We should all learn to harness our creative potential, and use it to solve our personal problems. Then the congregation, in collective consciousness, should collectively and co-creatively solve its problems, in the spirt of Enow'kin.

I think Bruce's model suffers somwhat from the old Christian hangup of letting a saviour  or group of saviours do our thinking and acting for us. What is really needed, though, is for every one of us to become a saviour, and personally create our own personal emergence, and collcetive create our collective emergence. 

Hi qwerty:

The kind of "mindless" meditation, wherein one stills the mind, is not the only type of meditation.

I practice contemplative meditation, in which one contemplates something, and lets it go and sets if adrift without consciously directing it, to see what becomes of it. This, I think, is letting the Spirit guide us. Virtually all of my insights are the result of contemplative meditation.

Arminius, 

You wrote,

What is really needed, though, is for every one of us to become a saviour, and personally create our own personal emergence, and collcetive create our collective emergence. 

I agree with you, Arminius,  As you know, I am still not certain who made the decision that Bruce's congregation needed to emerge.  However, it leaves me wondering - - what is the role of the church leadership in this process? 

Hi LoveJoy:

I agree with your assessment of Janet Crawley's presentations. We had her for our last Presbytery - ALL THROUGH PRESBYTERY - to guide us to establish Identity issues and deal with the apparent apathy that is happening with Leadership involvement these days. She did not seem to have much of anything to offer, could not control the group and seemed more interested in pontificating than bringing anything new. Yet, I have to say, some participants found her helpful.

I tried to get the above comment to just "reply" to you above, then tried to delete it all and it remains way down here. So just "bump" this as a PS to LoveJoy's comments above. I went away for a day and this string has grown. I need to read it before saying anything more. Sorry about dat!

Over on Social the other day, EZed the squirrel had this to say about leadership:

If The Squirrel had an audience with The United Church of Canada, the spotlight would be on leadership.  We cannot hide our bright lights under the bushel basket.  We must let our leaders be light.  People are our most precious blessing from God.  Let them be light!  Unleash a new genesis of creativity in the body of Christ and, so, in the world.

About the future, he said:

The United Church of Canada is not condemned to die.  The false prophets of death are misled. They confuse a difficult but natural reality: in due time, a great generation of church men and women will die.  The most important honour we can give that generation is to provide the opportunity for them to pass the church's gifts and mission on to new generations.  The most important task facing that generation is to pass the church's gifts and mission on to new generations.

He made other comments, too, on the light-hearted "Ezed for Moderator" thread.  I liked his comments and thought they were relevant to our conversation about Emerging Church.  I have copied them here for the folks who don't go over to Social very often.

Hi LumbyLad, 

Welcome back to the book study.  I am having great fun co-hosting with Arminius. 

Your response will still be at the bottom of the thread when you hit the Reply button, but you will be able to see the original post as you type.  The other thing is that if Reply or Quote are used, the person will no longer be able to Edit the original post.

Bruce's Videos - link at bottom

As I listened while he does his best to combine some New Age thoughts with the old traditional Christianity I kept thinking about Mary Baker Eddy in Christian Science and her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.Her book was published in 1875 and it is believed ( along with other older period New Thought writers) that the New Age movement( Alice Bailey, Blatsvky -sp)  borrowed  or adopted many of its beliefs from Christian Science. Helen Schuman -sp- Age of Miracles-  as an example is also believed to have been involved in C. Science prior to channelling this book.

Hi paradox3:

I agree with EZed. The United Church of Canada is not going to die-- IF it changes in time. These changes are going to be difficult and painful for some, for others they are reasons to rejoice greatly.

In us, the self-creative Kosmos, a.k.a. God, has created (evolved) a self-creative organism self-named Homo sapiens sapiens. God multiplied, diversified, and uniquefied ITself, and every one of us is one of ITS unique outcomes.

Of all things created, we evolved to be self-creative, in the image of our utlimate Creator. In us, our ultimate Creator evolved a dualistic brain capable of creative thinking, and a dynamic body capable of creative action. Our divine purpose is to think creatively, and to be dynamically and creatively active.

Alas, traditional, male-dominated, doctrinal and hierchial religion forced us to be imitative rather than creative. For far too long, Christian religion was (ab)used by an authoritarian establishment to control us. This necessitated keeping us imitative.

Now, at long last, we are throwing off the shackles of imitiativeness and becoming what we are meant to be: CREATORS! The emerging process is transforming us and our Church from imitative to CREATIVE!

The outstanding insight of our post-modern age is relativism. This relativism, however, is far removed from moral relativism. Relativism only means that there are no absolutes, that we are creators of truth, and that we are as godly and creative as the God that created us, with a godly responsibility for our and God's creations. All we have to do is create responsibly and wisely. Not play God in the proverbial, irresponsible manner, but be godly, in the full responsiblity which this entails.

Sorry about the sermon, I just couldn't stop myself.   

Hi stardust:

Yes, stardust, a new religion is already here: CREATION SPIRITUALITY

Because this new religion is creative, and regards religious expression as artistic, it can contain any of the old religions, provided that they are regarded as artistic expressions. Religion is not dead; God is not dead--absolutism is!

Absolutism is the negative aspect of all stages, from Beige to Turquoise. Creativity and responsiblity are the positive aspects of every stage.

One can be freely creative only in a relativistic universe. The new religion is re-claiming the original Eden--the relativistic universe--in which we can be freely creative.

Setting Our Face toward Jerusalem: The Psychological Foundations of Leadership is this chapter’s title. Bruce talks candidly about his own psychological journey, and discusses his dreams and fears.   Seminary did not prepare him adequately for leadership of a congregation, although it taught him many important skills. He speculates about an unconscious bias toward leadership in the United Church. This goes back to the worldview of the Green value system, with its focus on egalitarianism. 

• Self-definition
• Staying connected across differences
• Emotional intelligence
• Awareness of our “shadow”

Hi paradox3:

Bruce does not only acknowledge Anna Christie (known hereabouts as LoveJoy), but also her book, "EVOKING CHANGE." It is an excellent work on leadership. We are thinking of making it the next subject of study of our congregational book discussion group.

The spiritual hierarchy inherent in the Spiral Dynamics is a natural hierarchy, not a dominator hierarchy. In a natural hierarchy, the ascended forms transcend and inlude all previous forms. Nevertheless, for an ascended individual, the temptation to ride the High Horse of Conceit and lord it over others is always there. The perception that the ascended individual may do so is certainly there. If, however, it is clear from his or her actions that the ascended leader really is a masterly server of everyone and everything, and that her major aim is to evoke the leadership potential in others, and thereby encourage them to ascend, then such a leader cannot possibly be regarded as a dominator of others, but very clearly is a servant of the whole: the whole congregation or denomination, humanity, the world.

It is difficult to speak from the viewpoint of Yellow without appearing to be conceited or elitist. After all, being at one with God is regarded as the highest possible conceit. But if the actions of someone at the Yellow or Turquoise level truly are those of a servant of the whole, then this highest possible conceit is offset by the lowest possible humilty.

The four psychologial leadership capacities you outlined above are very important. Self-definition is relatively easy, and easiest in a circle, wherein others tell us how they see us. We already know what we think about ourselves, but we don't know how others see us. Their perspective can help us define ourselves, and our strengths and weaknesses. In the circle we can give to others of our strengths. And our weaknesses we can strengthen by taking from others.

Staying connected across differences is easy if one bears in mind that every one of us is a unique form of God, experiencing the cosmic totality which is God uniquely, and God is experiencing ITself uniquely through every one of us.

When it comes to Emotional intelligence, however, we men have to bow our heads and acknowledge the superiority of women, who are naturally more pre-disposed toward emotional intelligence than we. This greater emotional intelligence in females is appearant in the different approaches to leadership between paradox3 and me in leading this study group, and betweeen Anna Christie and Bruce Sanguin and their respective books, as well as their respective approaches to emerging.

(Sir Arminius drops to his right knee, places his right fist over his heart, and bows deeply before all women.)

Awareness of our shadow is most crucial, and most difficult. Almost every one of us has some shadow issues to deal with. We here at Lumby UC are planning to hold a wondercafe.live! evening on "Shadow Work."

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

Until the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

Their way to dusty death.

Out, out, brief candle!

Life is but a shadow, a poor player,

Who struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more.

It is a tale, told by an idiot,

Full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

-William Shakespeare

But life does not have to be a shadow, it can be a light. And it does not have to be a poor player fretting or strutting the stage, it can be a masterfully serving player, dominating the stage. And life does not have to be a tale, told by an idot, full of sound and fury, signfying nothing. It can be an epic, told by an ascended individual, full of joyful noise, signifying everything.

The choice is ours! 

"When it comes to Emotional intelligence, however, we men have to bow our heads and acknowledge the superiority of women, who are naturally more pre-disposed toward emotional intelligence than we."

In my opinion that is a myth.

Hi Meredith, and welcome to our discussion group!

"Myth" is short for "mythology," and a mythology is not a falsehood but a profound truth expressed by metaphor. 

If, however, you think that women are not naturally pre-disposed toward greater emotional intelligence than men, then it is so, for you.

Quote:

"We are preparing the way for Christ to enter the hearts and minds of our people. John didn’t win any popularity contests (and we may not either!). He called the religious leaders of his day a “brood of vipers” – to their faces.”

Yikes!  I think Bruce could have made his point a little more gently !

 P.S.

Good article in Google by Anna Christie. I'm not sure if its part of her book or maybe she just helped David Ewart write it. ?  Good Gossip, Bad Gossip... its sure worth a read.

http://www.i-pad.org/davidewart/Good-Gossip.pdf

Hi Brood:

Why I used that word, only Freud might discern, but I have been away caring for my 95 year old mother who descided she needed to have her appendix out! I have read this whole thread from top to bottom, coming from a "real world". Ah, we love to play with our minds, egos and beliefs and the process I see is a very creative one. Would that we could all get together and indeed create a new religion.

Bruce's chapter on Leadership really hit home for me - the idea that you are wasting your time teaching people a lot of "Leadership skills", but that there is a lot of personal work to do to become a Leader. (Sorry, I lost my book, so I am going by memory.) Much of this theory, I believe may come from the Bowen Island Systems theory, or at least it sounds very familiar. In reading Anna Christie's wonderful book, this too seemed to be interwoven into the work. Our immediate problem in our churches is that our Leaders simply cannot make the commitment to emerse themselves in a 2-year course of working on their Shadows, looking at emotional intelligence, etc. like those who specialize in the field of Leadership. The four leadership capacities outlined by Bruce Sanguin serve to remind us of the complexity of developing good Leadership selves, but I fear that this may not help me in the "Training" of good leaders for MY Church or for our Presbytery, which is now crying out for lay people to join their leadership/management circle and wondering why people are not coming forth.

It rather brings me back to the issue, discussed far above this thread somewhere about prayer and meditation. Querty said,

".....whereas meditation is a sort of emptying of the mind and a cessation of our efforts to change the world through projection of our will into it while prayer, on the other hand, results in a careful and respectful marshalling of our thoughts and our desires combined with an effort to divine the opportunities that may yet exist unseen in the world for us.  In addition, it is a projection of our hopes and dreams that seeks to guide or moderate our relationship with the cosmos ... It is an attempt to align our intention with that of the cosmos.  As such it is an attempt to use spiritual methods to address spiritual problems.  By using prayer we organize our thoughts (and thus the efforts rooted in them) and the world around us at the same time.  If we pray together we also empower ourselves through our unity with each other and with the spirit of the cosmos, God.'

I CHOOSE meditation (mindful, mind you) over prayer simply BECAUSE it does not involve projecting MY will on the Divine. I find meditation connects me directly to the divine within me. Group meditation would do the same to anyone within the group. There is an assumption with prayer that this is designed to not only connect ourselves as a powerful group with the power of the Spirit, but that perhaps this Spirit will intervene as a Whole does to its Parts, and bring about change. Meditation is an engaged LISTENING to what is a part of the SELF and enabling our wisdom as "the created" (in the image of the Whole) to come forth. Prayer may indeed cause change (if you read the research of Dossey and his subsequent Theory) but it is what we DO with the results that count. I do not believe it is helpful for Leaders to assume or encourage a view that prayer will cause God to ACT on this creation. This is what most people who pray believe, regardless of how we may intellectually frame it. When I actually do pray, I am just meditating on words that are usually said FOR me. It seldom moves me. I guess this is because I believe that God is THE CREATOR. In the beginning the process of evolution was sparked. From that point on, all of the created had a job to do, to help creation move to a state of greater complexity. Those who could not contribute got lost to the fossils. Man is still being tested (by himself). I don't think, Arminius, that Man is MORE created in the image of God. All parts of creation reflect the nature of the Divine.

So, back to Leadership. Given that we do not have time to take 2 years to take our Leaders through pschotherapy, Shadowwork, developing emotional intelligence, etc., why not just EITHER use the miracle of prayer to "pray for good Leadership" and believe that God will assist us (in It's good time, when we are ready) or practice intensive meditation to help new Leaders get in touch with the Divine within? I am getting rather practical here. I don't much care if they connect themselves with the Kosmos, but rather that they go through some form of discernment process that separates THEIR will from GOD'S will. One of the greatest moments of my Spiritual life was a few years ago, when I was doing a paper on discernment and finally "I got it". It wasn't just the intellectual understanding, but an INNER experiential discovery that my opinions were not MY truths at all. I had to go deeper into my SELF to discover these. I discovered that my truths were indeed more than even my experience but deeper. These are things hard to talk about except in concrete form. For instance, I realized that, as a Leader, what people thought about me as a person who stated a belief or opinion no longer was factored into my responsibility to go in an intended direction. It was, at the same time, not about winning my way, but about creating a learning process for others to arrive at something beyond the obvious. It felt different. It meant that as a Leader, I was not GIVEN the destination or the "answer" to lead people to, but rather I HAD the talent to create new pathways that were not always obvious. The process (Journey) became more important than the decision (Destination). This was most frustrating for those who wanted decisions to be made fast and furious.

So how to "train" new Leaders or attract new leaders into the fold? We cannot expect them to take the Bowen Island method of intensive process. We have to use the tools that we have access to while mentoring them. Yes, it is "interesting" to talk to them about ShadowWork or "meaning systems" (as I call them, but this is like having a good speaker - very little is retained. Experiential training is generally conceived to be more beneficial. Those of you who believe that prayer has the power to change, might consider spending a long time praying with your new leaders. I prefer to teach them how to meditate and discover what they already KNOW about moving from the simple to the more complex. This is our inborn direction and intention. This is what Leadership does. It "leads". It does not provide the answers.

I am not sure any of this made any sense. I can feel it inside, but the words to express it somehow seem lacking. Perhaps someone can help me express it better or simply challenge it as misguided. Both are quite acceptable.

Wow - I just popped in after a long Saturday to see about this thread (the only one i'm now following before my - hopefully permanent - "wonderbreak!). Quite a lot of reading! But I enjoyed all of it.

To respond briefly to a few of you ~ Querty ~ your description of yourself is unbelievably attractive - woo hoo! Yowzers baby!...sorry for that digression, folks. Anyway...there were a fair few who fit your description who carved out the time in their lives for my course (which shocked the hell out of me, actually - I kid you not.) But many did not, could not - and still the congregational culture "shifted" because so many became Biblically literate and learned the skills that it simply "rubbed off" on everyone else. As well, Bruce and I and another of our respected colleagues, Rev. Ed Searcy - whose congregation 'emerged' through yet a different route - all had to humbly admit when we taught a VST course together that we were probably all incredibly gifted preachers. And so...listening to 48 sermons a year X 5 years has somewhat of an effect on the rest of the group as well.

Someone up-thread referred to David Ewart's work and yes, David is a good friend of mine and I was inspired by his work on spiritual gifts and he was inspired by my work on leadership, came to my book launch, and began doing some work with other colleagues using my material. (Unfortunately I became disabled shortly after launching my book so haven't been able to promote it the way Bruce has promoted his materials!  I'm therefore very thankful to David for getting it "out there" in some different formats and circles.)

Arminius - re: women vs. men and emotional intelligence - lol! I hope you were just joshin'! Or perhaps that has been your experience, backed up by the clinical experiment with two subjects - me and Bruce Sanguin...ha ha ha! I'll be sure to tell Bruce that the next time I see him. Anyway, all kidding aside - there is no difference between men and women when it comes to emotional intelligence. Women may appear to be more aware of their emotions, but many are not and even if they are, they can't always do anything to grow into greater maturity. Men may be less aware of emotions such as sadness or nurture but they're pretty clear on anger. And I'm generalizing too much even for myself now....But I enjoyed what you said about it!

Lumbylad just a little thing: Bowen theory comes from the psychiatrist and theorist Murray Bowen.  Bowen Island was named after Rear-Admiral James Bowen. (And don't ask me what a "rear-admiral" is!)  

Bruce Sanguin is familiar with Bowen theory and used it, I believe, in his therapy practice. I also integrate the theory into my work, although I have some major differences with Bowen and they are the very things that many church leaders have despised about Bowen theory.

Arminius my friend,

Another definition from dectionary.com is "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology".  When people (and others beside you have) say "women are more emotionally intelligent than men" it often goes unchallenged and thus becomes part of our mythology about gender differences.  I think there are a lot of men like yourself who exemplify that this simply isn't true.

Ah, Meredith, I like this definition of mythology! One is never too old, or too macsuline, to learn, eh?

Hi Meredith and LoveJoy:

Ah, well, men might well be as emotionally intelligent, or not, as women. There goes another of my pet theories!

But what I really meant was social intelligence. I am a backwoods mystic and a socially inept bumbler, clumsy in the social situations that my wife breezes through and thoroughly enjoys.

I always thought women were more socially skilled than men. Isn't emotional intelligence part of that greater, feminine social skill?

Hi LumbyLad:

Although I do contemplative meditation, and hardly ever pray, the most profound, mind-blowing and life-changing event I ever experienced came after a simple but earnest prayer.

So who am I to knock prayer?

And, of course, all creation reflects the nature of the Divine. Humans are more like God only inasmuch as they are self-creative.

See you tomorrow at book study, and in church!

Hey Arminius, 

Our book study is coming along nicely.  Let's thank everyone who has posted on this thread - - ByGraceiam, Lovejoy, match3frog, Qwerty, Stardust, RussP, LumbyLad and Meredith.  And of course the lurking Crazyheart.

You wrote: 

But what I really meant was social intelligence. I am a backwoods mystic and a socially inept bumbler, clumsy in the social situations that my wife breezes through and thoroughly enjoys. 

You might be capturing the introvert/ extrovert dimension here, rather than the male/ female one.  Just a thought.

Stardust, 

Bruce sounded "heavy-handed" here to me, too ... P3

Speaking truth to power is not for the timid.  There is no "nice" way to say "you're wrong" or even "your performance could be improved" because whether you say the former or whether you say the latter the organizational consternation and the organizational reaction you get are about the same.   I guess even Jesus couldn't be "turquois"all the time.