Expressed a little differently, Walter Wink talks about every congregation having an "angel", which is the corporate personality of the congregation.  Can you identify the "angel" of your congregation? 

Arminius, who initiated the Emerging Church book study, will be away from the cafe for a few weeks now.  He explained about this on the chapter six thread, and we wish him well with his recovery from surgery.

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

Is this morphic field .....not the Holy Spirit......I know how wonderful the Holy Spirit can be and when I walk into any church my Holy Spirit discerns the energy field that you call it....but the Holy Spirit is way more than just a field ......the Holy Spirit is the will of God and carries our prayers, adoration, praise and worship to the Lord......

The Holy Spirit is the energy of God Himself......the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the water....Gen...ch..1...........I believe the Holy Spirit is the mind of Our Lord God....I also believe that the Spirit is transferrable to others......as we come in contact with others it surrounds them and then they have the senses of feeling it.......

If we could see the move of the Holy Spirit from space..what a wonder that would be surrounding all of Gods peoples of the world......a large spirit/energy.....

With the Holy Spirit upon me.......it is not myself but the Glory of God others see....the Glory of the Lord upon my persons......which others can feel....the Love of our Lord God....

Is this the same field you are referring too?.........

I will be praying for Arminius.........

IJL:bg

paradox

i have seen the enemy, whoops sorry, and he is mainly blue, with a tinge of orange around the edges.

I never realised how conservative our congregation was until I read Bruce's book.   We are in the first stages of a revitilization and while "the Team" was looking all green and 21st century, the congregation just didn't understand what we were up to with our art space and technology.  A real eye opener.  Definitely not the crowd that Arminius, IT bless, would feel comfortable in.

So, we become subversive and sneaky, and eventually get our way.

But in the meanwhile, we suffer through one more chorus of Onward Christian Soldiers.

And totally off topic, but am I the only one who thinks the hype on the new site may have been a little bit overdone.  I find it harder to navigate and it is not as friendly.

IT

Come back soon Arminius, you are missed, although I am sure paradox will do an admirable job

Russ

Hello Bygraceiam, 

Bless your heart!

I was beginning to think that no one was going to show up on this thread.  Thank you for your excellent question about the Holy Spirit.  I think I agree with you, and I would love to ask Bruce for his comments.  Maybe Bruce (Booeysang) will join us again at some point.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, RussP.  I am missing Arminius' participation quite a bit on these threads.  Like yourself, I have found this book extremely helpful.  It is giving me a way to think about my present and my previous congregations. 

Do you think that we all have a tendency to over-estimate where we are on the spiral?  I have been wondering about this. 

When we get further into the book, we will be able to talk more about Bruce's ideas re:  introducing change.  I don't read him as subversive, necessarily. 

Hi again RussP, 

You wrote, 

And totally off topic, but am I the only one who thinks the hype on the new site may have been a little bit overdone.  I find it harder to navigate and it is not as friendly. 

On the whole, I think the site is much improved, but there are a few features of the old wondercafe that I miss...P3

paradox3

Further on, I believe, there is one chapter that deals with the welcome at the door, contacting people, etc. and in that chapter there are some really neat ideas that one can use, without the conservatives catching on, that make the church more open.  Simple things like most under 20s don't know the words to the Lord's Prayer so print them in the bulletin.  A really Duhh moment.

After my current eye opening, I would say we do overestimate where "we" are on the spiral.

The, let us say more experienced, members of the congregation grew up with the Monty Python God, parting the clouds and speaking to earth.  The death and resurrection as being "the" important part of the whole story.  To step beyond that and appreciate that there is no guy on a cloud living out there, but that the entire scheme is evolution, man, with a built in desire to generate more complex forms, just doesn't cut it.  It is scary to many.

People can't see that Jesus wanted us to follow HIS faith, not to follow HIM.  Faith as Jesus, not the faith of Jesus.  (Warning, incoming flaming arrows, warning)

How do you explain that God is still God, just being expressed in 21st century speak, rather than 4th century speak.

God is very much here, in the rock, the tree, the chipmunk, and in me.  Yes, Virginia, I am part of God.  Very small part, but part never the less.

THAT, was the hardest thing, I think, to "get".  It was one thing to have Arminius try and explain it, but it wasn't until I read the books, thought about it, went to the "Living the Question" series, that it made sense and that it was OK, if you understand what I mean.  It was scary to say, OK, I don't believe in the guy in the sky and while Jesus was a great guy, super ideas, someone, like Gandhi, who you should follow, it really is OK to question, and not believe that the Bible came in the mail on a DVD direct to the disciples.

Sorry for the ramble.

IT

Russ

RussP, 

"You can't stop religion from evolving", writes A.J. Jacobs in The Year of Living Biblically. 

Glad to have you following and participating in the book study...P3

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

Hello russ.....I believe the bible is a guide book for those of us who want to follow Jesus Christ on the journey back to God.....I do agree in order to have a personal relationship with God we must do it by faith in Jesus....but Jesus is much more then that .....we must follow His teachings..His principals and apply them to our lives.....I believe we must become the characteristics and the attributes of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit....to become loving, kind , peaceful, wise, happy, joyous, wise, knowledgable and gererous.....we must become one of the most important character which is all love and forgiveness for everyone God chooses to put in our path....nothing happens by chance..God has prepared our path on the journey...putting us with others who are at the same place on the spiral....and also with those who are higher or lower on that spiral.....only God knows the heart of those who are on the path....and like wise prepares us when we follow His will to help lead others in that direction.....

For me Jesus Christ is real...more real than the computer I now type on....I feel Him in my heart at all levels in my life......mind, body, heart and soul......Praise Jesus.....

IJL:bg

Hi paradox3 and discussion group:

I think the physical universe unfolds in outward space and forward time and burns the memory of its unfolding in the form of an inverse hologram into inverse space and reverse time. In other words, the wheel of time rolls forward in forward time and outward space while etching the memory of its roll into reverse time and inverse space.  Cosmic memory, or the cosmic soul, would then be the backtrack of forward time, right back to the zero moment of time.

Thus, all cosmic memory would be omnipresent, and we can access it intuitively when we resonate with it. When we resonate with our congregational soul, in our sanctuary, then we would be most perceptive to the memories that are associated with this congregation and sanctuary. But, as I said, I don't think cosmic memory is localized. I think all cosmic memory, right back to the zero moment of time, is always and omnipresently present, and one can access any part of it, anywhere, anytime. Uniting inverse space and reverse time with outward space and forward time, cosmic memory essentially is beyond space and beyond time.

Timelessly Yours 

Arminius

Hi guys

• This is an  interesting topic  as usual and I don't mean to detract from it but alongside it I'd really appreciate it  if  somebody has a few minutes to read and respond to lumbylad's thread Emerging Church whatever.....there aren't a lot of participants. I believe lumbylad expresses Arminius beliefs finally in terminology I can understand  (sorry Arminius...lol) and some feedback over there would be marvellous.
•  
• Vibes? Of course we all give off vibes whether it is from one person to another or as a group. I once experienced very hateful ugly vibes during a personality clash with a co-worker. I actually heard hissing sounds....so funny...and I wonder if he heard them too! Feelings were mutual. We also experience very strong vibes or passion during  secular musical concerts as a group. I attended a Nana Mouskouri concert and I was totally blown away..... I'm not sure how much of the vibes are contained within ourselves and whether or not we project them on to others. I mean if I went to a church service feeling cold and souless, heartless myself....would I project that on to others? How can we explain one certain person in a church group feeling a large measure of love while another in the same group may feel nothing or unmoved, cold. What we bring to it  from within  ourselves certainly must count for something.

• Vibes or the spirit in a room is quite real tho I do believe. Many of us can sense illness, tragedies, or death that is taking place or has existed in a certain location.  I have experienced what bygraceiam is speaking about re the Holy Spirit. I once attended an Andre Crouch musical concert and the love was so strong it could literally knock a person out. I would identify it as the Holy Spirit with all the people in the same accord or agreement.
•  
• P.S. I liked the old WC format much better.My computer's incompatible it seems and I'm driven almost insane........:)
•  

Russ P.

You write that "there are some really neat ideas that we can use without the Conservatives catching on...."  are you in cohorts with Rick Warren.....!!!

I swear I often laugh so much....tears streaming down my face .....that my posts  or replies hardly make sense. Having been here almost two years all I know is that God said let there be laughter  and so it was.......maybe it was on the 8th. day after he had rested up.

Sorry, I see you did respond on lumbylad's thread. I left a question there. I wonder if there is any short answer to it?

My question:

I guess I'm thinking evolution continues  automatically so I'm not sure  what it is that we co-create with God .

I agree with Bruce that congregations have an "ethos" or "culture" that is distinguishable when one walks in the door. I also think that whatever that vibe is, even if it's positive for some, it will not appeal to everyone of every "age and stage". Often congregations that consider themselves "FRIENDLY" are in fact the most UNfriendly. That's because the more friendly they think they are, the more ingrown or "cliquish" they are. I think it was Easum or Bandy who said people don't want friendly churches, they want a church where they can make friends. Unfortunately, this means that Easum and Bandy's other adage proves true: "you attract who you are". Therefore older congregations with mostly seniors who want to attract "young people" are facing a near-impossible task. They'd be better served to focus on attracting more seniors, and doing that well.

Personally, I don't understand (agree?) with much of what's being talked about in this thread. Morphic energy fields???

All I can add is that when I walked into my small Baptist church in Toronto, it felt like home. I had a great sense that this was the place God wanted me to be. I served as an active member for about seven years there before the family moved to Alberta. I attribute that feeling of being at home to the Spirit of God, not to any morphic energy field.

Lovejoy

• If the church is facing an emergency state of survival, do or die, I'm also thinking along the lines of an outreach to seniors even if it means it remains  stagnant and they  like stagnant. New people joining  in their 60's might prevent church closings for a few years down the road.
•  
• The downside is that an elderly congregation presents a greater challenge to the pastor in that they are more needy and demanding in physical terms as well as in meeting their spiritual  or psychology needs. My mother-in-law attended such a church where the minister was available after hours to speak with whomever. He had to be all things to all people  including settling their family disputes as well as being a caregiver. The poor guy ended up leaving town! He kept his parish but he moved to the country making himself unavailable and getting some measure of peace. Problems....problems! It ain't easy....!

• When my daughter was young I did attend a Baptist church  ( it was close by) so that my daughter could attend Sunday School. I had no problems since I wasn't looking for friendship but it was obvious that the older people were friends who had probably grown up together on the same streets. Friends are friends wherever we find them be it in an office setting or any kind of gathering or club so we can't really fault them for that.  Its life.

Your quote : "You attract who you are " is definitely a given.

Uh...oh....w...................ay        off topic.....sorry about that guys...

match3frog

So...you think we're a bunch of wild cat lunatics.....!!!! Here I go...laughing again! Sorry! Morphic energy fields.... a terrific study 'tho.

God is energy.

stardust, I don't think it's way off topic. It's in keeping with Bruce's chapter.

As a presbyter who encourages aging congregations to reach out to other seniors, I think the challenges you mention are workable. I tell congregations "someone turns 65 every day". There is a huge outreach possibility if you "target" seniors. As for pastoral care needs, yes, that's a given that there will be more. Older people get sicker, and approach or reach life expectancy. Therefore, the congregation has to be realistic about the minister's time and also about its own gifts for pastoral care. Teams need to be trained and such. But it's do-able. And it beats sitting around whining that you have "no young people" and thus get mired in stagnation, as you say, and don't do any ministry.

Hi stardust: What we co-create with God is, of course, the future.

Arminius

Sorry I didn't clarify my question properly. I meant : how will we co-create with God  after death as spirits  in space or something like that ...lol..as spirits will we have a big influence on the earth ?  Sorry I'm not top notch at communicating.

• Lovejoy: I agree. I think lots of seniors are watching the evangelists on T.V.

Widows, widowers living alone with no close family ties etc.

Hi stardust:

Appearantly, God, or the world of the spirit, has no direct influence over what happens here on Earth. We, the living, are the minds and hands of God on Earth.

In unity with us, God is active. In disunity, God is passive. We activate God by uniting with God; we are God's agents on God's green Earth.

Moreover. it is we who decide whether we live united with or separated from God. From God's side, we always are inseparably connected with God. It is we who choose to be disconnected or connected. This is entirely up to us!

Likewise, it is entirely up to us whether to act in the ego-centered interest of our disconncted selves, or in the world-centered interest of God. God gave us ITS godly gift of CHOICE. The CHOICE is ours!

Hi Arminius, 

Glad to see you are feeling well enough to follow the discussion here and add your comments.  Before going on to Chapter 8, I would like to sum up a little. 

Bruce has used the theory of Spiral Dynamics to provide a very helpful model of Christian spiritual development.   He differs quite substantially from Gretta Vosper, who is talking about moving "beyond" Christianity.  Bruce remains grounded in the Christian tradition.  Spiral dynamics is useful in looking at our personal faith, and also in determining the center of gravity of a congregation. 

In Chapter 8, he will present his ideas about leadership, and will make reference to the work done by LoveJoy.   He talks about effecting a cultural shift in his church, in order to become an emerging congregation.  On another thread here in R and F, Lumbylad said that he finds Bruce's approach to leadership somewhat tyrannical. 

I checked back to the earlier chapters of the book.  In Bruce's case, a small Think Tank created the non-negotiables, which were then taken to the congregation.  I know that you and Lumbylad have been finding it fairly difficult to determine the non-negotiables for Lumby United Church.  How is that going, by the way?  

One of the difficulties might lie in the inclusiveness of our denomination.  In a single congregation, we might find individuals with a range of values from Red/  Blue to Yellow/ Turquoise.  I don't imagine it will be easy to reach agreement about the non-negotiables. 

I am also wondering about who gets to determine that a congregation needs to make a cultural shift.  Is it the minister?  The board?  By consensus of the congregation?  By majority vote?  I haven't seen this question addressed in Emerging Church.

Yes, paradox3, who gets to determine whether or not a congregation wants to emerge?

This is the big question here at our little Lumby United Church. I am all in favour of putting the concept of "emerging" before our congregation, but the other members of our book study group are reluctant. Once we are through with the book, we'll confer with our minister, who has read the book but is not part of our study group. I'll be in favour of a "World Cafe" type service--as Bruce recommends in a previous chapter--to expose the concept of "emerging" to our congregation and let the congregation decide whether or not they want to emerge.

Our congregation ranges from Red to Turquoise, with a "center of gravity" at Blue and a secondary center at Green. I try to inspire our congregation from the Turquoise level, and when I preached a sermon in which I identified God as the self-creative universe, the Greens in our congregation cautioned me that the Blues won't like it. But it was one of the oldest and most conservative members of our congregation, a WWII veteran and true Blue traditionalist with a Red tinge, who was first to enthusiastically congratulate me on my sermon. I think he never thought deeply about the nature of God, and the way I portrayed God appealed to him

I, personally, think that all levels are wide open to inspiration from the Turquoise level. Those Greens who warned me that the conservatives in our congregation won't like my Turquoise sermon did, of course, themselves like my sermon, but seemed to have (mis)judged the Blues in our congregation from the limitations of their Green perspective.

Well, when LumbyLad said that he finds Bruce's approach to leadership somewhat tyrannical, then he may have spoken from the Green level, in which egalitarianism is one of the foremost commandments. Even those of us at the Yellow or Turquoise level are somewhat Greenish at times, and cringe from the perceived elitism that the concept of leadership implies.

As I said several times before, spiritual leadership is not elitism. The higher one rises in the spirtual hierarchy, the more devoted a servant of the whole one becomes. And at the highest level one is utterly devoted to the whole, and becomes its utmost and lowermost servant. Spiritual mastery is the mastery of servership; spiritual leaders are masterly servers.

I can, of course, not speak for LumbyLad, and will encourage him to reply. I'll see him tonight at our wondercafe.live! where we'll have an interesting speaker, Fred Newhouse, a local forester who will speak on Ken Wilber's "A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING." The Spiral Dynamics are going to be part of his lecture. In fact, he attended a worksop by Don Beck on the Spiral Dynamics last year in California, where the participants were taught about the Spiral Dynamics and how to spread the "Integrated Theory," which unites spirituality with the natural sciences, psychology, sociology, and biology. "Integral Societies" have since been founded up and down the Left Coast,  also known as the West Coast,  and Fred plans on establishing one in Vernon in the near future. LumyLad and I will join. I'll keep you posted.

As you see, all's well in Lotusland B.C.

Thanks Arminius!

• Your quote: Appearantly, God, or the world of the spirit, has no direct influence over what happens here on Earth. We, the living, are the minds and hands of God on Earth.
•  
• Now I see what you mean when you  refer to yourself as a spiritual atheist. Yikes! I can't agree with you on this one!  But lets drop it and not discuss it further on this thread because the fundamentalists are going to descend here   and put your head on a chopping block. We'll go way off topic and round and round for the umpteenth time.
•  
• Good thread...on with the topic...on with the show....I'll keep reading.

Hi stardust: Never mind, straying a little bit off topic won't hurt.

I warned you not to believe anything I say. I don't have the truth; I only say what I think and feel.

In Unitive

Arminius

Arminius

All Rightie !  Back on topic ,my first impression of Bruce's colors was : "Oh no...not labels!"

There's old Mrs. So-and So  . She's beige. I won't bother with her.  Laugh!

I get the feeling of going backwards and being very judgmental but I reckon its just me.  My mind is a bit on the sluggish side these days; hardly fit to keep up with Bruce, which is why I prefer to read rather than respond.

You said not to believe anything you say. You did pronounce one truth. You said you have steel pins in your back. That I believe ..... and my truth is that I've decided to give my happy face a nose as below.

:-)

Hi Arminius,

You wrote: 

As I said several times before, spiritual leadership is not elitism. The higher one rises in the spirtual hierarchy, the more devoted a servant of the whole one becomes. 

Yes, I agree, Arminius.   Those with Yellow/ Turquoise value systems will be able to appreciate the dignity of the earlier stages, without falling prey to their disasters. 

Bruce tells us that individuals at  Green  tend to think they have reached the highest possible level of spiritual development.   Do those at Orange believe that they have reached the highest possible level of intellectual development? 

As we have noted many times here at wondercafe, some anti-religion authors (Dawkins et al) talk primarily about religion's Red/ Blue aspects.  I would say that Gretta Vosper also rejects the Green expression of faith found in the liberal church.  Gretta does see a future for the institutional church, and she argues passionately for her particular vision.  However, the final paragraph of her book (before the Toolbox) hints at a time when church might not be necessary.

A Brief History of Everything sounds like a great book.  I hope you report back to us about the presentation by your local forester.

Stardust wrote: 

God is energy. 

So maybe bygraceiam and match3frog are right, and "morphic energy fields" are an expression of the Holy Spirit .  What do you think?

Hi stardust:

In Spiral Dynamics, there is no elitism. Ascending to a "higher" stage means that one transcends and includes the "lower" stage. Someone who has arrived at Turquiose, for instance, has included and transcended all pervious stages, and thus would never look down on someone who is "just" Beige, or Blue, because Turquoise includes Beige, and Blue.

Arminius, 

This model of Spiral Dynamics has been very enlightening to read about and consider.  You are completely correct about Yellow/ Turquoise, but I think there is much potential for elitism at Orange and Green, (intellectual and spiritual elitism, respectively).

A drawback of the model could be that we all tend to overestimate where we are on the spiral.  And I think that Turquoise moments might actually be quite rare ... maybe like the proverbial mountaintop experience? 

Yes! Yes!  Arminius!  You're idealistic seeing the world as it should be. I'm sure its only my imagination  but I've a tendency towards seeing the fundamentalists on the WC  as being a wee bit ignored or looked down on. Their posts often don't get a whole lot of responses. bygraceiam is an example. She puts forth a tremendous effort here and very often its only myself and perhaps one other person responding to her. Why is that ?  Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. Its just my observation. I don't blame the emerging church but what color is humility and love ?

Let me just put my 2 cents in for A Brief History of Everything by Wilbur. One of the most brilliant books I've ever read.

Hi paradox3:

Yes, I agree with matchfrog3 and bygraceiam that "morphic fields" are an expression of the Holy Spirit.  And the term "Holy Spirit" does, of course, pack a lot more punch than the term "morphic fields," which reminds me of a field of opium poppies.

But then the intellectual conceit of Orange regards religion as "opium for the people." So, fields of morphine poppies are an apt metaphor for the Holy Spirit, eh?

Forgive me, matchfrog3 and bygraceiam, for joking about sacred matters.

Regarding the Holy Spirit, I have an interesting anecdote to tell. After my recent surgery, my blood pressure was a bit high, so I quietly chanted to myself, in bass voice, the following chant, which is also a hymn from the songbook More Voices:

Holy Sacred Spirit,

Breathe you breath on us;

Holy Sacred Spirit,

Breathe your life in us.

I quietly chanted this over and over for about an hour, and imagined the Holy Spirt breathing its breath and life into me. When the nurse then took my blood pressure then, it had dropped by twenty points!

LOL@ "field of opium poppies"

hee hee

Hi stardust:

It is not the fundamentalists who are being looked down and ignored here on wondercafe, it is their absolutism. Although I agree with the spirtual expressions of all levels, including the atheism of Orange, I do not support the absolutism of any. Absolutism is the negative aspect of any stage.

Absolultism is possible in the Orange and Green stages as much as in Blue, but it is not as pronounced in those stages as it is in Blue. The absolutist fundamentalism expressed by some of the evangelical denominations of the Blue stage has taken absolutism to its very limit.

One of my Seventh Day Adventist neighbours, for example, said to me recently that there are only two forces in the world, Christ and Satan, and if we don't believe in Christ, then we are under the influence of Satan. And believing in Christ the way you or I or many others here on wondercafe do won't do. If one does not believe in Christ precisely along the lines of Seventh Day Adventist dogma, then one is already in the clutches of Satan.

The spiritual expressions and traditions of the Christian Blue stage are dear to me, and I do not at all mind bygraceiam's rhetoric. Her traditional Christian words speak louder to me than the more neutral terms of general spiritual philosophy, which I frequently use, but I use these more general and neutral terms only because the traditional terms are fraught with the absolutism that I cannot and will not support. This absolutism has alienated many people from traditional Christianity. The anti-Christian or anti-traditional stance of Orange and Green often is a backlash against the absolutism of Blue.

At the Turquoise level, one experiences the Kosmos as a synthesis. Absolutism is no longer possible at that stage. However, even those at the Turquoise stage experience the occasional relapse into Yellow, Green, or even Orange or Blue, and are prone to the prejudices of of those stages. They do, however, know better, and quickly realize their mistakes and ascend back to Turquoise.

Arminius

All Rightie!

I Gotcha!

I'm on mushrooms because they're easier to access than poppies.

:-)

Hi paradox3:

Yes, the Turquoise stage is the proverbial Mystical Peak, and one can easily slide back from it into Yellow, Green, and Orange. I sometimes find myself afflicted with the intellectual conceit of Orange, or the spiritual conceit of Green, and quickly realize my mistake and ascend up to Yellow and Turquoise.

The trouble with Turquoise is that it is an expereince of the Kosmos as a synthesis. (Ken Wilber uses the word "Kosmos" because it denotes both the material and the spiritual cosmos as one inseparable Kosmos) As soon as we conceptualize and verbalize our experience of Kosmos, IT is no longer synthesis, but our self-created analysis, and already fraught with our personal and cultural bias. If one bears this in mind, however, then the Yellow conceptualizations remain relatively pure.

But, as I said, I sometimes find myself back in my previous Orange stage of intellectual conceit, or in my previous New Age Green stage of spiritual conceit, but quickly realize my mistake and go back to Yellow. The Turquoise level is, of course, beyond words. When Socrates, John the Baptist, Jesus or some Zen Masters are depicted with the raised index finger, then this denotes the Turquoise stage, which is an experience of pure synthesis and thus beyond words.

Glad to be back. I was warned by Arminius that I, the "enlightened friend/colleague" (according to GREEN) was being talked about, but I had a hard time finding this string in the new system, so did a few blogs instead.

I have tried to read what has followed before this. I see a bit of Arminius-stoking going on here and no challenge to his claim that he IS in the yellow/turquoise level. The facts, to me, are that it may be easy to SPEAK from these levels, but to live at these levels is another story. I believe that Sanguin's views on Leadership are valuable ideas for real change and this Spiral dynamic stuff is challenging Theory, but takes a lot of discussion and hard interpersonal work to put into understandable action. The mere motion of identifying yourself with Turquise, to me, smacks of ego-centrism, placing yourself at some higher level that someone else in what Bruce defines as a very limited Emerging specturm. Bruce does not have us "emerging" in time until sometime after 2000. Yet if I am involved in an ORANGE congregation, I can still emerge out of this and move towards GREEN. The other fact is that we have many areas of our SELVES in relationship to OTHERS, CULTURE, IDEAS, etc. that may have us reflecting various colours in various relationships. We all have our "SHADOWS" that we haul around with us. This Shadow is the hardest to shake. So while a leader, such as Sanguin or even Arminius may talk the good talk, in action and reaction the Shadow may submerge and glow a brilliant BLUE, or even BEIGE, if it triggers the "survivalist" in us. Frustration that our fellow congregants do not seem to WANT to grow and change, may bring a reaction like, "I'm taking my ball and going somewhere else to play (remember Arminius?)" is this kind of reaction. This is a solidly Shadowed-BEIGE reaction at times.

When you hit the Turquiose "ego-less" state of the unitive wholeness, there is nothing more to talk about, according to the Tier 2 presentation, yet there is another Tier 3 level that will, if you push and continue to emerge/evolve, will make you an angel someday. Perhaps the "Rapture" is true after all! If we just look at the developmental stages of "man" (8) as proposed by someone like Erik Erickson, there is a lot of similarity to the idea now called "spiral dynamics". Giving colours instead of names helps with the memory, but it is still a kind of labeling that makes it all rather artificial and unreal. Jesus, for instance, may have spoken like a Turqoise FOR HIS TIME, had Ken Wilber been there at the time. Yet he was born in the BLUE time. As a man, whom I believe was ahead of his time, but nevertheless was fooled into putting on the Messiah robe, we can all look back and judge him to be very ethnocentric and traditional - too much into good and evil/right and wrong. We must all be judged in the context, not only of our times, but of our present environment.

Then there is good old Bruce Sanguin, who would like us to believe that he took his congregation into an 'emerging process' , presumably of the YELLOW variety, yet imposed a tyrannical Leadership group in them (with their consent??) and laid of a series of non-negotiables that would certainly have Arminius and I out on the street, if the truth be told, as a couple of rogue atheists.

As I have said many times before, PARADOX rules in so many cases. This is likely while we tend to spiral. The necessity of having, always, a kind of push/pull or tension exisiting in order to grow or change eliminates the TURQUIOSE people, or even the YELLOWs from participating in real emergence. Much of what we talk about when we get this deep into things is a kind of intellectual flatulance. It is kinda fun but may pollute the air that real people breathe. I see nothing at all constructive about taking the theory of spiral dynamics, as presented by Bruce Sanguin to our congregation in any way but to suggest that they read Ken Wilber, who is genius. Initive Love is more than a bunch of people hugging as the Turquoise waves dance around them. Unitive love, for me is the ability of a congregation to choose their own stages of development in various areas, and to find tolerance, compassion, acceptance and an energy to move together toward a higher level of complexity. One level is no better than the next unless you are trying (straining) to become some kind of God or to merge with IT. If so, go ahead and MERGE. Meanwhile, let the congregation EMMERGE. If you have charisma, like Billy Graham, Bruce Sanguin, Obama, Ghandi, Jesus, Hitler, and the like, you may "get away" with a major manipulation of a mass of people (for a while). This does not mean you have "the answer" but rather that you have a talent. You still may be dragging that SHADOW behind you,  Jesus did not want us to worship him, but to follow his teachings. This is the same as many great charismatic leaders, at least initially.  Our Shadow often teaches us, as does PARADOX, that Power corrupts. It may be that intellectual emerging does the same thing if we are not careful. Merging with the Godhead in ACTION, not just in MIND or SPIRT produces a pretty huge EGO. Go back to RED!    Merging with God without action, without Mind, Body or Spirit, but in unified wholeness, I claim, may be a temporary awareness, most often by mystics, but is mainly an ideological construct. Sorry, I want MORE than that.  !

LumbyLad

Goody! Goody! Goody...you're here ! I can actually understand what you are saying. I won't respond but I'll stick around......

Hi stardust:

I was in the middle of "editing" while you were likely reading my usually too-long sermon! Yes, your comments about humility and labeling ring true. I remember reading a wonderful work by Arminius where he did say, "now that you have read this, throw it away, " the idea being that once you attach yourself to one way of viewing things, you are already off-track.

There is an intolerance I find in those who would operationalize excellent theories like those of Ken Wilber and put them down as maps to emerge like Bruce Sanguin. There is a different between recommending we consider a theory and make it a plan. Just like Jesus died for his beliefs (and one was that he was the Messiah) whether he was mistakened (as I believe) or not, more fundamentalists would die for their beliefs than those who emerge on a spiral dynamic. This takes courage and wins my admiration, whether I hold the same beliefs of not. That is why I am a "follower of Christ". I am sure that all of those poor people with Traditional value systems (REDS) like my good Christian mother (at 95) would look at this conversation and wonder what we were smoking. And in the UC that means over half of the congregants, I am sure.

LumbyLad

Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with Ken Wilber. I'll google him tomorrow. At the moment its almost 3 a.m. here in Toronto . I'm about to merge  (not emerge anywhere) with the computer meaning I'm going to fall flat on my face on top of the keyboard.

Good Night and here's to some wonderful emerging dreams.

:-)

Hi LumbyLad, 

Thanks for joining us.  You wrote: 

I see a bit of Arminius-stoking going on here and no challenge to his claim that he IS in the yellow/turquoise level. The facts, to me, are that it may be easy to SPEAK from these levels, but to live at these levels is another story.

It is my view that many of us overestimate our position on the spiral.  I don't think Bruce actually claims a position for himself, but perhaps he implies that he is at Yellow.  This a model of value systems, and it doesn't really address the question of living according to one's values.  I agree that values can be relatively easy to speak about. 

You wrote: 

Then there is good old Bruce Sanguin, who would like us to believe that he took his congregation into an 'emerging process' , presumably of the YELLOW variety, yet imposed a tyrannical Leadership group in them (with their consent??) and laid of a series of non-negotiables that would certainly have Arminius and I out on the street, if the truth be told, as a couple of rogue atheists.

Could you say more about why you think the leadership group described in the book was tyrannical?  I don't see anything wrong with a congregation determining its non-negotiables.  Your congregation might well come up with something different than Bruce's did.  I am a little bothered by the idea of the Think Tank determining the non-negotiables on its own, but Bruce does talk about taking the work of the think tank to the congregation at large. 

You wrote: 

The necessity of having, always, a kind of push/pull or tension exisiting in order to grow or change eliminates the TURQUIOSE people, or even the YELLOWs from participating in real emergence.

Quite a paradox, isn't it?  Thanks for the conversation.

Hello Everyone:

Speaking from the Turquoise level, from which one can't speak, and if one speaks from it then it is the Yellow level, I must say that the experience of Turquoise is experiencing the self-creative Kosmos as a synthesis. And acting from the Turquoise level means acting directly and intuitively from that experience, without intervention by the faculty of logic.

This is Zen type enlightenment. Once one has attained it, one acts directly and intuitively from it, without intervention by the analytical mind. When Zen Buddhism arrived in California 50 or so years ago, they westernized it into "California Zen" by adding the conceptual Yellow level to the purely experiental and intuitive Turquoise.

In traditional Zen training, however, the philosophy of Zen is not Zen. Traditional Zen training strives for enlightement through contemplative meditation, and after enlightenment acting directly and intuitively from that enlightened Turquoise level. Thus, traditional Zen jumped our Western and conceptual Yellow stage.

I don't think that the requirement of Biblical literacy would turn LumbyLad or me out on the street. Biblical literacy is not Biblical literalism. Moreover, Biblical literacy was determined as a non-negotiable only by Bruce's congregation. No other congregation need necessarily  follow that. However, if we abandon Biblical literacy as a requirement, then we may lose a good part of what it means to be Christian, and end up being "spiritual but not religious," along with all other religiously unaffiliated but spiritual people out there. Perhaps we could become a congregation for the unaffiliated, ushering in the post-denominational age?

Coming back to the stages of the Spiral Dynamics. The Spiral Dynamics just give us a map, a common framework of reference, a common language to discuss these concepts. The Spiral Dynamics are hypothetical and imperfect, as is any creation of the Yellow stage. The perfection of Turquoise can't be discussed. As soon as we talk about it, it is no longer Turquoise. The experience of Turquoise is experiencing the unnamable mystery, a.k.a. God. Any interpretation thereof is our arbitrary creation, and is tainted by our individual and cultural bias.

And that's why I always caution everyone not to believe anything I say.

LOL, Arminius.  Are we ready for chapter 8 yet?  I have a summary just about ready to go.  I fear that the rest of the book is going to get a little dry, because it deals with leadership, church governance, and so on.  

Oh Paradox 3, the best is yet to come. The section on Leadership, for me, actually made a lot of sense, and chapter 10 is likely the only chapter that might be actually used in our congregations now.

For some reason, I lost what I wrote from here on, so will try again. The trouble I have around Bruce Sanguin (The Emerging Church) is how he puts a kind of spin on his words. Behind what he says, for me, is the SHADOW of where he came from, a more fundamentalist background. I do agree Arminius, that he advocates a literacy approach to the Bible, not a literal reading (p.53). Yet, inre his view of how emergence should happen, he uses the model of Jesus in relationship to his disciples as his model and Jesus' beliefs at that historic time as reason to move in the direction he moves. He sees "the Kingdom of God" as non-negotiable for Jesus (p.51). He then goes lets us know that Mission, bible literacy, an open table, proclaiming the gospel and discipleship became these non-negotiables for his emerging church. The congregation somehow choses the Leaders/Think Tank, that are going to democratically make decision for them. He decides that (although emergence may take 10 years) the egalitarian ideal of churches (I call this using a consensus model) is out, because it breeds group tyranny. Instead he installs a truly democratic model. The problem I have with this is the environment of a Chrisian Church is the same I have with Boards who use the "majority rules" model. The minority are left behind. The consensus model, he claims, encourages the tyranny of the group (ie takes longer), but I do not agree. I have seen consensus models that are more fair than the corporation vote of majority rule. Indeed the tragedy of his decision to choose a strictly "democratic" model for change is that it does against most of what we consider to be social justice for those in a minority situation. Consensus is out. It takes too long.

I have called his manipulation of the congregation like a "tyranny of the One". I did not hear his congregation crying out for transformation or change. I heard of his criticism of what they had. I heard him enter into a covenant of change and use his Think Tank of Leaders as an apparently benevolent way of making democratic decisions. Like Jesus, there was only one way to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and that was through Him. He was there to fulfill the Law. Yet he warns us to resist quick-fixes (p.43) ""congregational chaos is not the end of the world". I felt like a yo-yo as he confirmed what I believed, then put his own spin on things. It is clear that Jesus way was the model for how HE would act and the disciples were his leadership team. This means that Bruce's way = God's way, and he will be the teacher and mentor of his leaders, I can imagine how the think tank operated. It would be instructional. When they were ready, as with the disciples, they could be left to go out a convert the others. This is NOT my model for change. It chilled me when Chapter 3 started with the biblical quote, "Let the dead bury their dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God". Metaphorically, I heard, those who are to resistant can be left to their own confusion; the rest of us will push on. This IS Democracy. This is not consensus, no matter how he clothes it with good intentions.

I am reminded that the ends justify the means. As long as you end up spinning the Kingdom into a kin-dom, and it feels good, whatever you must do to arrive there is ok. Ayn Rand's characters were successful and even attractive and 'right' in the end. Capitalism found a comfortable bed in the home of democracy. We are a church, the United Church. Our first priority is social justice, not only for others, but for those within out community. He creates his own process and directs his own process. He is the Messiah. Our job is to convince our congregations that they are YEARNING for emergence. My belief is that their are congegants with a core colour from Beige through Yellow. They are all capable of gradually emerging to the next level. It may not end up looking like the Kin-dom of God, but helping each divergent person to buy into change and participate in this fully and together, is our responsibility. I think I can shut up now.

I hope I have given you some few ideas about why I am uncomfortable with the beginning of this book, Paradox 3. Later, I am most comfortable with his Leadership model for training and the theoretical model of spiral dynamics. When theoretical models are translated into maps for action as easily as Bruce does it, I get worried. It is not this easy. Some of us do not have a Jesus-complex (to be rude).

The hand-picked "think tank" concept is the one that Bruce and I have the most disagreement on. My approach to issuing in change in my current congregation was completely different. I started a leadership class and invited everyone to be a part of it. After a number of years and nearly a hundred graduates, we still never "required" the class as a prerequisite to taking leadership in the congregation. I sort of sat back and allowed the Holy Spirit to flow through the people, completely believing in Paul's text that my job was to "equip the saints for the work of ministry". But their job was to discern that ministry themselves.

Anyway, Bruce gleaned most of his next chapter (8) from my work (and he cites it of course). So although I'm walking away from wondercafe due to addiction issues (!) I can pop back in to talk about chapter 8. He does mess with my theory...lol. So there are a few points worth discussing. In particular, I don't think he says enough about what I call "meaningful connection". He briefly speaks about "staying connected", which I appreciate, but doesn't go deep enough into it. And leaving out the word "meaningful" when speaking of "connection" is significant.

Anyway, this is discussion for another day, another chapter!

Cheers everyone!

Well, paradox3, who is "we?" Ist it the royal "we," refering to your esteemed self, or you and and I, as the co-hosts of this discussion group, or our entire group? I, for one, am not finished with the Spiral Dynamics yet, and have not even reported on the presentation on Ken Wilber's "Integral Theory" by our forester at wondercafe.live! on Friday night yet.

The lecture by our forester covered a lot of ground in a short time, and it helped if one had a little advance knowledge to truly understand and appreciate it. The forester summarized Ken Wilber's "Intergral Theory" in one hour, and did an admirable job, considering the complexity of the subject. A few people had a hard time following him, but most of us were mesmerized.

Ken Wilber combines biological, physical, psycho-social, and spiritual evolution into one elegant system that truly includes everything--and more--in one developmental theory. "A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING" is only one of about two dozen books Ken Wilber wrote in as many years, some of them are mentioned in "The emerging Church."  He now heads The Integral Life Institute, www.integralinstitute.org  or www.integrallife.com/ 

Our forester attended a recent conference on the "Integral Theory" in Concord, CA. 700 people registered for that event, but only 500 were admitted, because this was the maximum capacity of the venue. 69 of the 500 had PhD degrees, but there were also nurses, church ministers, and people from all walks of life. They were trained to spread the "Intergral Theory" in their home areas, and our forester is making an admirable job of it here in our area. Chapters of the "Intregral Society" are now springing up everywhere, and the forester is planning on establishing one in our area. LumbyLad and I will join, and I will duly report on it here on wondercafe.

I have already adopted Ken Wilber's term "Kosmos." This was the ancient Greek word for "cosmos," and includes both the spiritual and physical universe in one. In modern English, the word "cosmos" usually refers to the physical universe only. That's why Ken Wilber uses the archaic term "Kosmos" instead, to denote both the spiritual and physical universe in one. I have experienced the evolution of a physical/spiritual bubble universe in a mind-blowing mystical peak experience, and couldn't agree more. I define God as the self-creative Kosmos, in a state of synthesis. Those of you of the Orange or Green persuasion, who shy away from using the word "God," can use "Kosmos" instead. As I said, the word and concept comes right out of the cradle of Western culture, and doesn't pack some of the negative baggage of the word "God." 

LumbyLad, LoveJoy, and I posted at the same time. What is this? Harmonic Convergence? Synchronicity? 

I shall briefly reply to LumbyLad:

As Bruce writes on the title page of "The emerging Church," his book is a model and a map. No single individual or congregation has to follow it to the letter. Every one of us, individual or congregation, emerges on our own, at our own speed and our own, self-chosen terms. But the book is an excellent example and guide, model and map, and that's why I chose it as a subject of study, both here on wondercafe and in our congregation. A small rural congregation like ours here in Lumby obviously has to go about it differently than hip-and-posh North Vancouver.

Hi LoveJoy:

Your post is a case in the point I just made. Your congregation emerged on its own terms, and so should every other.

Maybe after this book discussion is over, someone should post a thread on the practice of emerging, and people can share the emerging experiences of their congregations.

LoveJoy: So you are the brilliant Anna. I just bought your book as possibly the next book for our book discussion. It is an honour to meet you and to have had exchanges with you. I am glad you have to pop out for addictions. I think I am the only one left in our Church who smokes!

The Times that are posted are inaccurate and make little sense to me, Arminius. Yes, the presentation on Ken Wilber's Integral Theory was very interesting, but very theoretical, of course. I look forward to also hearing of how peopel have used some of what Bruce has to offer to invite their congregations to emerge and make changes that work.

We are currently struggling with how we could offer a Leadership training course to our few Leaders and perhaps let Vernon UC and surrounding areas join us. I wonder, LoveJoy, would you be interested in doing some traveling? Our minister is only 18/hrs/week and does not have the extra hours to do this, although she has the training. Perhaps we just need to pay her extra to do this!!!

I think congregational emerging is not unlike the personal emerging we do psychologically through self-examination of our Mind, Body, Spirit and Shadow. It can be done through a lot of genuine openess to each other, sharing our selves, our faith, our compassion and our dreams. It does need a structure and all of this helps.

Let's move on. I think we are spent.

LumbyLad

• I'm sorry to hear you are spent.  Do you feel a bit of a light wind? Its me sending you some fresh energy.
•  
• I haven't been keeping up with the emerging church scenario but out of curiosity do you believe one must meditate or go within to become enlightened or to fully experience God (or God as oneself perhaps) ?  I'm speaking about having deep spiritual experiences. Is it something you promote at your church?  I've read the spiritual experiences of lots of New Agers on forums brought about by meditation.  Some of them scare the living daylights out of me. Hearing voices, seeing things, visions etc.and some of them are a bit creepy, far out and even evil. I'm asking because if the older people in their 70's and 80's begin to meditate and have visions or hear voices their families might think its the beginning of dementia or alzheimers.  Could this be one reason the aged folks aren't too enthused? 
•  
• Just a thought.....the Ascended  Master Arminius or anyone may answer if you're still spent.