rishi
Ken Wilber Emerging Church Guide
Posted on: 06/15/2009 09:48
Depending on how far the church wants to emerge, we might find another valuable guide in Ken Wilber to add to the traditional list (Borg, Spong, etc.). Below is a brief intro to his work.
Renowned philosopher and theoretical psychologist Ken Wilber, now 55, has devoted himself to integrating Eastern and Western philosophical systems. The author of 22 books translated into 30 languages, Wilber has built a following of activist/thinkers-from philosophers and spiritual teachers to psychologists and scientists -- and is the founder of the Integral Institute, a think tank encouraging the cross-fertilization of ideas. Beliefnet (http://www.beliefnet.com) is introducing Wilber as a new columnist. Below is a short column by Wilber from Beliefnet.
An Integral Spirituality: The silken thread that unites the world's great wisdom traditions.
What's my philosophy? In a word, integral. And what on earth-or in heaven-do I mean by "integral"? The dictionary meaning is fairly simple: "comprehensive, balanced, inclusive, essential for completeness." Short definition, tall order.
What would something like an inclusive or comprehensive spirituality mean? What could it mean? And would it even be remotely possible? Integral, in a sense, would be the ultimate ecumenical movement, if such a thing is even desirable. It would be a spirituality that claimed to leave nothing essential out. It would be a spirituality that in principle could be recognized and even practiced by believers in all the world's religions without abandoning their own essentials. It would be based on what seem to be universal human capacities to interface with the Divine. It would be inclusive and comprehensive, touching on all the bases of this elusive thing called "spirituality." It would be..
Impossible, is what it would be. But consider where we are in today's modern and postmodern world. We have, for the first time in history, easy access to all of the world's great religions. Examine the many great traditions-from Christianity to Buddhism, Islam to Taoism, Paganism to Neoplatonism-and you are struck by two items: there are an enormous number of differences between them, and a handful of striking similarities.
When you find a few essential items that all, or virtually all, of the world's great religions agree on, you have probably found something incredibly important about the human condition, at least as important as, say, a few things that physicists can manage to agree on (which nowadays, by the way, ain't all that impressive).
What are these spiritual similarities? I'll come back to those shortly, honest. For now, simply notice what it would mean if there were a handful of general items that regularly recur in humanity's attempts to know God (and presumably God's correlative attempts to reach a slumbering humanity, if God indeed exists). These similarities would seem to suggest, among other things, that there are spiritual patterns at work in the universe, at least as far as we can tell, and these spiritual patterns announce themselves with impressive regularity wherever human hearts and minds attempt to attune themselves to the cosmos in all its radiant dimensions.
And that would mean, would have to mean, that the standard-issue human being is hardwired for spiritual realities. That is, the human organism itself seems to be hardwired for these deep spiritual patterns, although not necessarily for the specific ways that they show up in a particular religion important as those are. Rather, the human being seems imbued by the realities suggested by these cross-cultural spiritual currents and patterns, with which individual religions and spiritual movements resonate, according to their own capacities and to their own degrees of fidelity. The simple recognition of these deep spiritual patterns would be the glimmering of an integral spirituality.
That recognition would also imply that, any practices that would help individual human beings attune themselves to these patterns would increase humanity's understanding of, and attunement with, the spiritual patterns of the universe. This attunement could occur through any of the great religions, but would be tied exclusively to none of them. A person could be attuned to an "integral spirituality" while still be a practicing Christian, Buddhist, New-Age advocate, or Neopagan. This would be something added to one's religion, not subtracted from it. The only thing it would subtract (and there's no way around this) is the belief that one's own path is the only true path to salvation.
If humanity's attunement to the spiritual patterns of the universe are helped by various practices-which might include prayer, meditation, yoga, contemplation-then modern psychological and psychotherapeutic measures would surely be part of any integral spirituality, since those measures can help increase a person's capacity for various sorts of practice. What do I mean by "psychotherapeutic measures"? This in itself is a large topic, so let me say, for introductory purposes, they are any measures that might be taken if you have an emotional problem and visit the office of a psychologist, psychotherapist, or psychiatrist-all of the measures for treating human psychological issues that have been developed in the last century or so, and that have demonstrated the capacity to help alleviate or remove emotional problems or obstructions.
Finally, integral spirituality-as the very name "integral" implies-transcends and includes science, it does not exclude, repress, or deny science. To say that the spiritual currents of the cosmos cannot be captured by empirical science is not to say that they deny science, only that they show their face to other methods of seeking knowledge, of which the world has an abundance.
Well, then, what are some of these spiritual currents, or some of the similarities that recur in virtually all of the great wisdom traditions? These are items that we will be discussing in future essays and interviews in this column, so let me start with a short and simple list. This is not the last word on the topic, but the first word, a simple list of suggestions to get the conversation going.
Most of the great wisdom traditions agree that:
1. Spirit, by whatever name, exists.
2. Spirit, although existing "out there," is found "in here," or revealed within to the open heart and mind.
3. Most of us don't realize this Spirit within, however, because we are living in a world of sin, separation, or duality-that is, we are living in a fallen, illusory, or fragmented state.
4. There is a way out of this fallen state (of sin or illusion or disharmony), there is a Path to our liberation.
5. If we follow this Path to its conclusion, the result is a Rebirth or Enlightenment, a direct experience of Spirit within and without, a Supreme Liberation, which
6. marks the end of sin and suffering, and
7. manifests in social action of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings.
Does a list something like that make sense to you?
Because if there are these general spiritual patterns in the cosmos, at least wherever human beings appear, then this changes everything. You can be a practicing Christian and still agree with that list; you can be a practicing Neopagan and still agree with that list. We can argue the fine details-and will do so in subsequent columns-but the simple existence of those types of currents profoundly changes the nature of belief itself.
If we add to those spiritual currents the other two ingredients that I mentioned-authentic spirituality must transcend and include modern science (not deny it), and psychological measures can help accelerate spiritual capacities-then we are getting very close to what might in fact be an integral spirituality, a spirituality for the modern and postmodern world that includes the best of the premodern traditions as well.
"Integral: inclusive, whole, essential for completeness."
Please join me in future Beliefnet columns as we explore this exciting and exhilarating topic (http://www.beliefnet.com)
Comments
rishi
Posted on: 06/15/2009 18:39
One (just one) of the tools Wilber uses in his work is a model called "Spiral Dynamics." It originated in the work of a spiritually oriented psychologist named Clare Greaves, but Wilber and others have elaborated it greatly. It's basically a model of spiritual development that can be applied to many situations. Here is a diagram of the evolving spiral, with some brief explanations of its tiers and levels.
The model has been used very successfully in high tension situations (e.g. apartheid in S. Africa) to work toward peaceful conflict resolution.
It has been reworked in a number of ways, using different terms, to make it accessible in different contexts. In high conflict situations where it's hard for people to think clearly, just learning the colors with brief explanations, so that they can be used as a kind of code language, has been a helpful way to move communication into a more constructive space.
Another example:
It's been used in some very interesting social and political analyses as well. For example, where you would think the Ku Klux Klan, or Greenpeace, might be within the spectrum?
Pinga
Posted on: 06/15/2009 10:25
Rishi, just a comment that I have been meaning to make....your posts are works of art in themselves.....love the images, the inclusion of graphs, etc.
Ok...back to reading them....but...needed to say that.
rishi
Posted on: 06/15/2009 18:09
Thanks, Pinga!
Jim Kenney
Posted on: 06/15/2009 20:46
Sounds a lot like mysticism which goes across religious lines -- Christian mystics are more easily understood by Buddhist and Jewish mystics than by other Christians.
I loved Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything.
Jim
Arminius
Posted on: 06/15/2009 20:55
Thanks for posting this, Rishi!
There are "Integral Salons" springing up all over the world discussing the teachings of Ken Wilber and others on the leading edge of psychospiritual evolution. We had one here in Vernon last winter, and I'm trying to incorporate it into our upcoming wonderSpirit gatherings.
Mendalla
Posted on: 06/15/2009 22:21
I am liking what I am reading so far. Thanks for posting that, rishi. I've got a couple of his books coming in to my local LPL branch so I may have more to add to this thread as I get into them.
Mendalla
Panentheist
Posted on: 06/16/2009 06:23
Sounds a lot like mysticism which goes across religious lines -- Christian mystics are more easily understood by Buddhist and Jewish mystics than by other Christians.
I loved Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything.
Jim
Wow Jim,
All 515 pages of it?
Admirable. How long did it take you to read it?
Cheers
paradox3
Posted on: 06/16/2009 06:27
Bruce Sanguin uses Spiral Dynamics extensively in his book, Emerging Church. I recommend it highly!
Panentheist
Posted on: 06/16/2009 06:30
I am liking what I am reading so far. Thanks for posting that, rishi. I've got a couple of his books coming in to my local LPL branch so I may have more to add to this thread as I get into them.
Mendalla
Mendalla, I obtained his DVD "The future of Christianity" as well as the book. Found the book a hard slog and am still wrestling with it. Appreciated the DVD and its clarity. It compliments the books very nicely.
Cheers
Mendalla
Posted on: 06/16/2009 10:54
Question for those who are familiar with Wilber: is he a "one note" author who tends to make the same points in every book or is there value in reading more of his stuff once you've established that you are interested in his ideas? I was looking at his titles in the library catalogue and found a certain sameness to them and I'm a reader who has very little patience with authors who flog dead horses (e.g. I stopped reading Eddings after the Belgariad, for those who are familiar with the fantasy genre).
Mendalla
Jim Kenney
Posted on: 06/16/2009 20:52
Panentheist wrote:
Wow Jim,
All 515 pages of it?
Admirable. How long did it take you to read it?
I don't remember. I read it in bits and pieces over a couple of months, I think. I am not sure if I still have my copy as I am inclined to pass on books I really enjoy to someone else who might like it. I have not decided yet to what extent I agree with his concept of Spirit's unfolding/evolving awareness of self through the awareness of the created. There was a fun science fiction (I don't remember the title or author) in which the creator felt immensely lonely and in the dark until consciousness appeared in humanity along with senses so the creator could see and experience what had been created.
shalom,
Jim
rishi
Posted on: 06/16/2009 21:04
Has anyone read his novel, "Boomeritus" ? Being a baby boomer, I'm curious about it, but have never read it. I've heard it said that Emerging Church is a very baby boomerish movement, so that has made me even more curious.
kaythecurler
Posted on: 06/16/2009 23:25
Nope - never read Boomeritus - but I'll try to get it from the library.
Interesting that Emerging Church is described as 'boomerish' - that must be why I and several boomer age friends are fascinated by it! The young people that Emerging Spirit was aimed at seem oblivious to the whole thing - church - Emerging Spirit - Emerging Church.
Arminius
Posted on: 06/17/2009 00:22
Question for those who are familiar with Wilber: is he a "one note" author who tends to make the same points in every book or is there value in reading more of his stuff once you've established that you are interested in his ideas? I was looking at his titles in the library catalogue and found a certain sameness to them and I'm a reader who has very little patience with authors who flog dead horses (e.g. I stopped reading Eddings after the Belgariad, for those who are familiar with the fantasy genre).
Mendalla
Hi Mendalla:
I'm not familiar with all of Ken Wilber's works, but I have read articles by and about him in EnlightenNext THE MAGAZINE FOR EVOLUTIONARIES website: http://www.EnlightenNext.org
He is one of the leading minds of the co-evolutionary movement which holds that we humans are an inseparable part of a self-creative and self-evolving universe, and that we can and should play an active part in this self-evolution. That we, in essence, are an inseparable, active and creative part of the self-evolving cosmic deity, and better learn to think and act it.
So, rather than reading his 30 or so books, it might be better to think and act as if we were part of the self-evolving God—because we are!
rishi
Posted on: 06/17/2009 06:50
Who’s on top, and who’s on the bottom?
This is something about Wilber that might turn people off. He seems to really get into his sexual metaphors. But I'm not sure if this is at least partly a critique on baby boomers (he is one himself). One of his caricatures of boomers, I've heard, is that in flight from their parents' guilt and shame, they can become shameless and consider that 'health.'
But, SnP when I first read your title, "who's on top, who's on bottom?" I thought for sure you were going to be commenting on the liberal vs. conservative conflict that's happening on Nishy's thread. Maybe it's not a bad metaphor, when it comes to the hard stuff, for the desire to take turns being on the receiving end.
Now for sure I'd better read Boomeritus!
Saul_now_Paul
Posted on: 06/17/2009 08:30
Hi rishi,
Well obviously Ken thinks he is “on top” with his “big screw” confabulation. So will the entire “One with the Universe” crowd.
I think Ken is on top of the “big screw” as well, but mine looks differently than his.
6 Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD. (Ken is here) They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the LORD and no longer served him, 7 he became angry with them. He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites, 8 who that year shattered and crushed them. For eighteen years they oppressed all the Israelites on the east side of the Jordan in Gilead, the land of the Amorites. 9 The Ammonites also crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin and the house of Ephraim; and Israel was in great distress. 10 Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD, "We have sinned against you, forsaking our God and serving the Baals."
11 The LORD replied, "When the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, 12 the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites [c] oppressed you and you cried to me for help, did I not save you from their hands? 13 But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. 14 Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!"
15 But the Israelites said to the LORD, "We have sinned. Do with us whatever you think best, but please rescue us now." 16 Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the LORD. (Ken needs to be here) And he could bear Israel's misery no longer.
Ken’s one world religion is just the beginning of an oft repeated disaster. And everyone who falls for his “big screw” will also get just that.
Pilgrims Progress
Posted on: 06/17/2009 19:03
I'm not at all surprised that the Emerging Church would appeal to babyboomers.
We are the generation that has been a catalyst for many changes.
To babyboomers, peace and love and sharing in community are what it's all about. (ah, maybe without the excesses in dope and booze!)
Arminius
Posted on: 06/17/2009 19:19
Hi Saul_now_Paul:
The question "who's on top, and who's at the bottom?" has been answered a long time ago, and I think the "One with the Universe crowd" is well aware of the answer.
"It is true, without falsehood, certain and most true: That which is above is as that which is below, and that which is below is that which is above, in order to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing."
-Hermes Trismegistos
Alex
Posted on: 06/20/2009 23:46
I like a lot of what Wilbur says. I took a course in ethics counselling. The prof was a physciatrist who as a Jew and Doctor found Wilburs work to be able to bring his professional and faith together and explain what they both had in common as well as much that he found lacking in both. He also belong to a group of Jewish people who followed Wilbur.
Only having read one of his books I was impressed. I have always been most impressed by the spirituallty of my Buddist friends, who like many other people brought up Christian found a place for themselves in Buddist thought.
However two or three things put me off Wilbur. (however that is not to say these three things are wrong, it just might be beyond my ability ot comprehend and my mind being prejudiced.
One is his colour scheme for memes and how he explained conflict being produced by neighbouring colour memes. I knew what he was saying but I thought it put to much emphasis on the conflict between the memes and not enough about conflict being created for other reasons.
Also I could not figure out a way I could use his philosophy to address disability, illness, and differences inside memes. Maybe you know what he has written on this issues. Faucault is the main philosopher disability though is following at the moment and I would really like to read any type of process thinkers take on theses issues.
The other thing that bothered me about him were some of his followers. However I love Jesus, and am bothered by some of his followers too.
rishi
Posted on: 06/21/2009 07:47
...his colour scheme for memes and how he explained conflict being produced by neighbouring colour memes. I knew what he was saying but I thought it put to much emphasis on the conflict between the memes and not enough about conflict being created for other reasons.
Also I could not figure out a way I could use his philosophy to address disability, illness, and differences inside memes. Maybe you know what he has written on this issues. Faucault is the main philosopher disability though is following at the moment and I would really like to read any type of process thinkers take on theses issues.
Hi Alex,
I wonder if this is a limitation of Wilber's being such a "big picture" kind of thinker. I suspect it is, because I have the same style, and people are always having to ground me with requests for examples and questions about practical meanings in difficult contexts. Maybe this is even a danger in being a follower Wilber. At the same time, he seems to be pretty conscious of his flaws, and the live dialogues I've seen him in show a good ability to come out of the clouds as needed. I think he does live internet chats once in a while. It would be good to engage him re: living with disability. He's certainly acquainted with grief.
The other thing that bothered me about him were some of his followers. However I love Jesus, and am bothered by some of his followers too.
Ain't that the truth...
Alex
Posted on: 06/21/2009 15:53
He's certainly acquainted with grief.
I know. He is one of the few contemporary thinkers I know who's spouse became ill shorlty after marriage and died while still young. I am still unable to read his book on his experience because I can not read through my tears. My partner became ill 4 months after we got together (when I was 23 marriage was illegal for us at the time) and died after a lengthy illness.(6 years or so). He has been dead now for many more years now and it still seems like yesterday.
rishi
Posted on: 06/21/2009 16:28
It colors who you are. It seems to have colored you in not only a painful way but a beautiful one as well, Alex. I see the same in Wilber. He was always a formidable intellect, but I don't remember the same compassion in his early work.
Pilgrims Progress
Posted on: 06/21/2009 18:13
I wonder if this is a limitation of Wilber's being such a "big picture" kind of thinker. I suspect it is, because I have the same style, and people are always having to ground me with requests for examples and questions about practical meanings in difficult contexts.
Hi rishi,
I think this is an extremely important point. Often I have been in the audience listening to a speaker, and not quite getting the message. I know instinctively that if an example from the speaker's own life was given, all would be revealed.
Essentially, what is the speaker trying to achieve? Surely, it's communication of his ideas with the audience?
The speaker has been grappling with these ideas for some time - but they are "new" to the audience.
For the record, I find you easier to follow than some others. (Not much bafflegaff!)
Alex
Posted on: 06/21/2009 21:21
It colors who you are. It seems to have colored you in not only a painful way but a beautiful one as well, Alex. I see the same in Wilber. He was always a formidable intellect, but I don't remember the same compassion in his early work.
I know remember why I have only read one of his books. I had intended to read Grace and Grit, the book about his and his wife experience before reading his other works, believing that reading it would give me a special understanding of his latter works.
For some reason likely explained by multiple and ongoing loss in my community, I keep putting it away.
rishi
Posted on: 07/20/2009 15:36
This just in:
crazyheart
Posted on: 07/20/2009 15:58
I want to ask a question about emerging church. It seems not to use the biblical sciptures as reference, if this is so, then why are we persisting in church to have 4 scripture readings each Sunday with the homily, semon, message built around one of them?
RevJamesMurray
Posted on: 07/20/2009 16:14
The UCC is not an emerging church in most senses of the word. While many may consider themselves 'progressive' to some degree, few have engaged emergent experience. Most UCC congregations use the 4 readings as part of the lectionary & liturgical revival movement, which was a reaction to the modernism of the 1960's and the topical preaching which was common in that era.
The emerging church is swinging the pendulum back to thematic preaching, away from what is known as 'Biblical preaching'. So instead of using a randomly assigned scripture from a calendar and trying to apply it to this week's context, a scripture is chosen to illuminate a theme which emerges out of the lived context.
Emerging churches are also expanding on the experiential aspects of worship through the use of the arts, which takes you out of the pews.
EZed
Posted on: 07/20/2009 17:29
Arminius wrote: "I'm not familiar with all of Ken Wilber's works"
EZ Answer: You would enjoy it, if just for the sections on duality and nondual.
Arminius
Posted on: 07/21/2009 00:44
Arminius wrote: "I'm not familiar with all of Ken Wilber's works"
EZ Answer: You would enjoy it, if just for the sections on duality and nondual.
Hi EZed: There are piles of unread and partially read books in my livingroom and study, and my "must read" list grows longer by the day. But I'm getting old, and I'll have to live forever to read them all.
Will we be able to read in the afterlife, or will we know it all?
I don't think we will. I think God is evolving, in part, and particularly in the way of analytical knowledge, in and through us. We, Homo aspiens sapiens, are the part of God that is responsible for analyzing God.
So the cosmic analysis is important after all, eh?
rishi
Posted on: 09/06/2009 10:48
Arminius just made an interesting comment on managing change (in nijafaery's thread, 'How are UCC and UU different?'.) It uses the Spiral Dynamics model, so I'm copying it in here, along with some of the dialogue that preceded it. The key post by Arminius is in bold.
Interesting - all of the faith statements in the UCCan are predicated upon a relationship with the Divine through Jesus of Nazareth (in some way, shape or form). From the 20 Articles through to the Song of Faith that holds true.
There is definitely a wideness of theology and christology in the UCCan - but the point at which we move to having no christology is the point at which we would need to recognize we are no longer a Christian church. Please note: I'm not saying that is bad or wrong or out-to-lunch, just that I believe that part of the definition of a Christian church needs to include Christ.
I think that there are a few congregations in the UCCan who might need to stand up an say, "Ok, this is what we believe! We are no longer where we were. Jesus - as Christ - is no longer a focus in our congregation's life - and we believe that that is ok!"
I also believe that the UCCan needs to decide if it is a body of Christian congregations, or a body of theistic congregations, or a body of spiritual congregations... or something else entirely.
This is turning into more of a "where should the UCC be headed" thread, so I'm a little reluctant to wade in to that part of the discussion since I've made my call and become a UU.
However the line of Richard's that P3 quoted about about "I think that there are a few congregations in the UCCan who might need to stand up an say, "Ok, this is what we believe! We are no longer where we were. Jesus - as Christ - is no longer a focus in our congregation's life - and we believe that that is ok!" caught my attention.
I'm not sure that you need to change your focus from Jesus as Christ as much as redefine what that focus means. The life and teachings of Jesus Christ embody many values important to all of us, not just traditional Christians. Even many secular humanist UUs still acknowledge Jesus as a great moral teacher, but what takes him beyond that for some of us is the way that his values were embodied in the story (not necessarily to be taken literally) of his life, death, and resurrection. Taking that approach, you can reclaim Christ as a valid focus for your church but do it by living out the values and virtues He symbolizes rather than by insisting on belief in/worship of Him as a sacrificial lamb/Saviour in the traditional sense.
(to Mendalla:) I think this would be the honest thing to do -- honest in the sense that, in my experience, the UCC's real distinctiveness is in its modern, neo-secular approach to the Christian tradition. Jesus as a role model, not as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world or an emanation of the Cosmic Christ. So why not celebrate that for what it is, instead of clinging to doctrines of a more transcendental nature that the denomination by and large does not believe anyway? It's this incongruity, I believe, that makes the UCC unattractive to many.
I think if congregations remove Christ from their ethos, then, they are no longer United Church of Canada, as we now know it.
It all depends how one defines "Christ," doesn't it?
To me, The Christ, or Christ Consciousness, is the unitive consciousness of at-one-ment with everyone and everything, including God. Jesus expressed his Christ Consciousness as "The Father and I are one." This Christ Awareness made him into Jesus the Christ.
I think everyone can attain the Christ Awareness, and this indeed is, or should be, our ultimate aim; as individuals, as a Church, and as a species. Christ Consciousness, then, is the same as the Buddha Consciousness of Buddhism, the Cosmic Consciousness of the New Age, or the experience of Cosmic Unity or Synthesis by those not affiliated with any religion.
(to Arminius:) That would work, kind of like Teilhard. But I suspect that for many that would be an even more difficult change than just doing away with christology altogether. Because the UCC is already closer, in practice, to a modern view of Jesus as a wise teacher, like an Aristotle, without any of the supernatural baggage. The upside of radical congregationalism is that it can accommodate all of this diversity, because it doesn't have to make choices that represent the whole. But eventually the time comes when it is faced with answering the question of whether there is any meaning framework that is higher than congregationalism itself. And I think that is the choice point that the UCC has reached as an organization.
Like you, I favor the fluid, Teilhard-like christology you suggested. But I'm not sure that that is what is in the best interest of this particular organization at this point in time. By conciously embracing a humanistic naturalism, the UCC could stop apologizing for all of things that it is not and start celebrating its true strengths. Christology isn't necessary to have a profoundly positive impact on people's lives both inside and outside of the denomination. Spiritual disciplines don't need to be about becoming more congruent with God. They could just be about becoming more congruent, happy, just human beings.
What I think would be ideal, but I'm not creative enough to imagine how it would work in practice, would be to somehow embrace the non-supernatural approach to Jesus, while, at the same time, formally leaving the question of christology "open" until further notice (rather than just disposing of it). So no one would get "kicked out" for having an alternative christology, or for not having one at all. Then the organization could keep offering its unique brand of Christianity, and also enter a phase of consciously exploring whether christology, in one form or another, should be integral to that brand in the future. Other denominations, with their christologies in hand, would probably want to help us in that exploration process as consultants. You could invite representives from UU, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc... to be consultants as well. Now that would be progressive....
(to Rishi:) ... to employ the Spiral Dynamics, it is not wise and indeed not possible to pull people radically up to the Turquoise level, bypassing all other levels. Rather, it is desirable to make people comfortable with wherever they are on their spiritual journey, and encourage them to move upward and forward, step by step, without jumping any steps, which can result in pathology, and the jumped-over steps would have to be re-peated later, anyway.
The mystical experience of the unitive awareness, however, can be encouraged, and does indeed occur, at any stage. The people Jesus spoke to where largely at the Blue stage, but some were at the Red or perhaps even at the Purple stage. One can, of course, not explain the unitive experience to them in terms of Yellow or Turquoise but must adhere to the terms appropriate to their stage.
But there is no good reason why we, in our enlightened day and age, where people are socially and culturally at Orange and Green, should confine our explanations of spirtuality to the three- or two-thousand year old terms of Blue!
This, I think, is the patholgy of our time: We are, socially, intellectually, and culturally, at Orange and Yellow, and spiritually in Blue. Our general culture is two steps ahead of our Christian religious culture! Our general culture is ahead of and out of step with Christianity!
The United Church persently is at the Orange/Green stage, harkening back to Blue and pulling ahead to Yellow and Turquoise at the same time. I hope the resulting tension is not tearing the Church apart.
The danger of tearing the Church apart, however, does not so much come from the Yellow and Turquoise stage but from Green, Orange, and Blue, each of which has the unfortunate tendency to regard themselves as right and the others as wrong.
(to Arminius:) Good thinking.... I should include Ken Wilber in that wish list of consultants in the last post...
When religion becomes mere ideology, severed from its life-giving and live-sustaining mystical roots, then it runs into danger of atrophying and dying.
Arminius
Posted on: 09/06/2009 11:05
Hi Rishi:
I can only respond briefly, for my wife calls me to get showered and ready for church. I'll be conducting the service today. I posted my sermon on wondercafé blog. It is, of course, what I always say. My wife will be reading mystical love poetry by Hadewijch of Brabant and Mechtild of Madgeburg.
O know, sweet love, I always write of you,
And you and love are still my argument;
So all my best is dressing old words new;
Spending again what is already spent.
For as the sun is daily new and old,
So us my love still telling what is told.
-Shakespeare
rishi
Posted on: 10/12/2009 06:47
Father Thomas Keating and Ken Wilber reveal:
The Future of Christianity
Kimmio
Posted on: 08/08/2013 03:39
I thought I'd bring up this thread again- an old one I wasn't here for. Ted's thread on faith vs. facts inspired me to look up Ken Wilber to see if he has anything to say about Christianity specifically (whose book, Brief History of Everything, I am reading now. I didn't "get it" completely the first time- didn't have the attention span for it- so it sat on the shelf for years). Lo and behold, he does have much to say about Integral Christianity, and this thread popped up in my google search- and you guys were already talking about it years ago!
Kimmio
Posted on: 08/08/2013 03:40
Where's rishi? I miss him.
Arminius
Posted on: 08/08/2013 10:34
As far as I know, Rishi is now an Anglican minister, and probably very busy at his new post. I miss him, too. He was progressive, but also traditionally Christian, a binding link, perhaps, between progressive and traditional Christianity ("traditional" in the postive sense of the word.) His "progressiveness," I think, comes from the fact that he once was a Buddhist monk.
The future of Cristianity might well hinge on Christianity becoming progressive and integrated enough to acknowledge the validity of science and other thought- and belief-systems, yet remain traditonal enough to still be distinctly "Christian." Rishi appears to have been able to be both progressively and traditionally Christian.
Perhaps we were a bit too progressive for Rishis' taste? After all, what's left of traditional Christianity if we strip away the post-Jesus Atonement Theology and Christology? Just the teachings of Jesus? Mere religious or spiritual humanism?
I had the impression that Rishi was a progressive albeit Christological Christian. He might have been able to give a thoughtful response to Ted's thread. "Faith versus Facts." I myself am not into progressive Christology. What attracted me to Rishi and his spirituaity was his mysticism. He is a Buddhist/Christian mystic, and so am I. Mystics understand each other at a deeper level that stems form mystical experience. His Christology did not disturb me one bit. He probably had a mystical experience that inclined him toward Christology.
crazyheart
Posted on: 08/08/2013 11:18
How we change some of our thinking as time goes by.
Arminius
Posted on: 08/08/2013 13:20
(to Rishi:) ... to employ the Spiral Dynamics, it is not wise and indeed not possible to pull people radically up to the Turquoise level, bypassing all other levels. Rather, it is desirable to make people comfortable with wherever they are on their spiritual journey, and encourage them to move upward and forward, step by step, without jumping any steps, which can result in pathology, and the jumped-over steps would have to be repeated later, anyway.
The mystical experience of the unitive awareness, however, can be encouraged, and does indeed occur, at any stage. The people Jesus spoke to where largely at the Blue stage, but some were at the Red or perhaps even at the Purple stage. One can, of course, not explain the unitive experience to them in terms of Yellow or Turquoise but must adhere to the terms appropriate to their stage.
But there is no good reason why we, in our enlightened day and age, where people are socially and culturally at Orange and Green, should confine our explanations of spirtuality to the three- or two-thousand year old terms of Blue!
This, I think, is the patholgy of our time: We are, socially, intellectually, and culturally, at Orange and Yellow, and spiritually in Blue. Our general culture is two steps ahead of our Christian religious culture! Our general culture is ahead of and out of step with Christianity!
The United Church persently is at the Orange/Green stage, harkening back to Blue and pulling ahead to Yellow and Turquoise at the same time. I hope the resulting tension is not tearing the Church apart.
The danger of tearing the Church apart, however, does not so much come from the Yellow and Turquoise stage but from Green, Orange, and Blue, each of which has the unfortunate tendency to regard themselves as right and the others as wrong.
Hi Kimmio:
I don't usually quote myself, but this is what I got out of the "Spiral Dynamics." Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics are, I think, an important part of Ken Wilber's "Integral Spirituality" and also of Bruce Sanguins' "The emerging Curch," on which paradox3 and I conducted a book study, back in the glory days of WonderCafe.
Kimmio
Posted on: 08/08/2013 18:00
How we change some of our thinking as time goes by.
What thinking do you think has changed overall in 4 years, CH? Just wondering. I wasn't with UCC then, or on WC.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 08/09/2013 16:16
If thinking hasn't changed ... have we not learned anything from our mistakes?
Such is evolution versus a fixed and ferme creation carved as a bust from stone ... much to kohl and dark for my wee light ... but still I work at it ... with much opposition ...
There is A'Donis carved from basalt and another warm and true though perhaps just an esse antes of the former ... but much lighter ...
It's enough to make a person start to love'n you again ... seeing the human condition evolving ... learning ... a mystical experience? You can beta pon it ... life in cycles of emotions some of eM well-thought out ...
To the toone of "my chill'd what did you learn out there?" a prodigal quiery ...
Mendalla
Posted on: 08/09/2013 16:25
As far as I know, Rishi is now an Anglican minister, and probably very busy at his new post.
Apparently, he's at St. James Anglican in St. Mary's, Ontario, so not too far from London (where he lived when he did most of his WC posting).
His profile from the church's website: http://www.sjsmac.ca/index.cfm?i=16066&mid=10&id=31920
Mendalla
Arminius
Posted on: 08/09/2013 16:35
Thank you, Mendalla. I'll click on it right away.
Just read his church profile. Impressive! Not merely impressive, but outstandingly so! What the Christian denominations need is more ministers like him!
Kimmio
Posted on: 08/09/2013 21:44
Yes, Rishi really is very special and I feel fortunate to have crossed paths with him- even if only online. I felt genuine agape love emanating from his words and ideas-and willingness to explore many ways of doing things " look for the best" of them (theologies, ideas) "and ditch the rest" as the saying goes, and I remember him saying something similar. Stories like his inspire me and give me hope. Not in the institutionalized church as the be all and end all church per say, but in what I believe Christ's message was about- and hope for a more unified humanity- anywhere it happens. That's "the church". Anywhere the Spirit moves it to happen. Now, I realize, as a minister he has the institution to uphold too- but it's his life experience and insights, and of like minded others, that suggest that to me and strongly inform my faith. Thanks, Rishi! If you read this- blessings on your journey!
Kimmio
Posted on: 08/09/2013 21:35
Gary Paterson is another one of those special ministers. Well, everyone is special- but they have an extraordinary, and evolved ability to glean spiritual insight from life experience and those of the people they meet and places they go- not just in church, but all around us.
RevLindsayKing
Posted on: 12/16/2013 14:10
Thank you, Mendalla. I'll click on it right away.
Just read his church profile. Impressive! Not merely impressive, but outstandingly so! What the Christian denominations need is more ministers like him!
BTW, I remember reading Rishi's stuff on WC, way back. I wondered what happened to him. Now I know, thanks!
stardust
Posted on: 12/17/2013 13:43
I'm so glad Rishi has found a place to call home. He deserves it. I wish him and his partner much happiness and success.
Here's links to 2 of his Facebook pics, his ordination..?...and his 5 yr. wedding ann. pic.