Hi Arminius,  

Nice summary of Emerging Church!  Thanks for doing it. 

I would be interested in comparing Sanguin and Vosper's ideas.  How many folks have read both books, or followed both wondercafe book studies, I wonder? 

It is interesting to note that Vosper and Sanguin are each considered to be progressive Christian authors, yet they represent quite different strands of progressive Christian thought. 

Hi paradox3:

Having read both books, and speaking in terms of the Spiral Dynamics of Bruce's book, I must say that the two books come from different Spiral levels or stages. Gretta's book is typically Orange, whereas Bruce's is Yellow/Turquoise.

Gretta's book represents a typically Orange backlash against the traditionalism of Blue. Unfortunately, in casting out the traditionalism and absolutism of Blue, she also cast out all that is Blue, including the positive aspects of this stage, like love of tradition, deep abiding faith, sense of duty, love of order, respect for authority, and group loyalty. And, by suggesting that spirtuality could be man-made rather than a real, ontological reality, she leaves the realm of the spiritual altogether, and enters the realm of secular humanism—another typically Orange expression.

Moreover, she speaks in favour of casting out the old paradigm, whereas Bruce is in favour of including and transcending the old paradigm, the way it happens in natural evolution. But Bruce also says that, in nature, nothing useful is ever left behind, thereby inferring that something useless is left behind.

Could absolutism and literalism be useless aberrations that should be left behind? Bruce does not specify, but he says that absolutism is the disaster aspect of every stage. Perhaps Gretta means something similar when she says that the old paradigm should be discarded?

But this is only my opinion. I hope more people who have read both books will speak up on what they see as the differences and similarities between the two.

Hmmm ... Where is everyone, do you think, Arminius?  There is so much to talk about!  I agree with your assessment that Gretta's book is typically Orange.  Did you see the article in the spring by Doug Todd in the Vancouver Sun?  He drew the same conclusion, and called Gretta's theology a "default to ethics". 

After the With or Without God book study, I wrote a summary of the discussion which took place here on wondercafe.  I am thinking about doing the same thing with Emerging Church, and comparing it to WWG.  There are several areas which I would like to consider:  Vosper and Sanguin's approach to God; Jesus; the Bible; leadership and change; and spiritual development. 

Right now, I am reviewing Gretta's chapter about Fowler's stages, and thinking about how it dovetails with Spiral Dynamics.

I think I have just added a couple of books to my "To Read" list! They look interesting. I wanted to read something that describes the emerging church.

Hi Northwind:

Welcome to our book discussion! Please let us know what you think about Bruce Sanguin's The emerging Church, if it is indeed one of the books you have added to your "To Read" list.

_________________________________________

Hi paradox3:

Yes, where is everyone? Has this latest wondercafe "Assault from the Extreme Right" shocked them into silence?

I'll have to borrow Gretta's With or Without God from LumbyLad if we are going to do a serious comparison. I only read it once, and don't remember it all that well.

What stuck to my mind, though, is that she called herself a "wounded female," and said that that her mother was one, too. Could her book be somewhat of a vendetta against the traditionalist Christian Church that had wounded her and her mother? A backlash by the opressed against the perceived oppressor? It almost seems that way, doesn't it? And it also seems that Gretta, in her anger against the perceived oppressor, poured out the proverbial baby with the bath water.

Although her book appears to be rational, she is not very logical in her arguments. One can almost feel the anger seething beneath her attempt at cool.

Anger does, of course, inhibit one's ability to think clearly, as was also demonstrated by the abovementioned "Assault from the Extreme Right."

It seems that both extremes of the religious spectrum tend to get carried way with anger, eh?   

Hi Arminius, 

I am up for a serious comparison of the two authors, if you are . 

They certainly share some common ground, along with the "progressive" label.  Bruce and Gretta have both moved beyond the "earlier paradigm" of Christian faith.  Gretta places considerable emphasis on its deconstruction, while Bruce talks about transcending it.

There are also some significant differences between Bruce and Gretta.  As I said earlier, it would be interesting to compare their approaches to God; Jesus; the Bible; leadership and change; and spiritual development.  Additionally, we could look at their ideas about inclusiveness and hospitality. 

Hi paradox3: Bruce talks about transcending and including the old paradigm, not merely transcending it, whereas Gretta talks in favour of discarding the old paradigm.

But not even Bruce will include the old paradigm unconditionally. He talks about absolutism as the negative aspect of every stage, and appearantly is not in favour of carrying this aspect of the old paradigm forward into the new paradigm.

"In natural evolution, nothing truly useful is ever left behind," he says, thereby inferring that something useless is, or should be, left behind? Could absolutism be such a useless aspect of spiritual evolution? I don't think so; I think absolutism is an essential stage of spiritual evolution. But, like all aspects of all past stages, absolutism should only be applied when absolutely (no pun intended :-) necessary, perhaps in a dire emergency, when we have to go back to the very basics just to survive.

Hi Arminius, 

In the process of spiritual evolution, do we carry forward the "dignities" of the previous stages, and leave behind their "disasters", do you think?  Is this what Bruce means?

Yes, paradox3, leaving behind the "disasters" of each stage, and carrying forward the "dignities," this is what I think Bruce means.

He didn't comdemn absolutism per se. As I said, there might well be a justification for some kind of absolutism, even at an advanced stage. Turquoise absolutism isn't tyranny, eh?  Or, in Bruce's terms, being a leader in a dominator hierarchy is not the same as being a leader in an evolutionary hierachy. In an evolutionary (and spiritual) hierarchy, the leader is the utmost servant.

Hi Arminius, 

Did you think Bruce was writing from the Yellow/ Turquoise level?  I thought that he was. 

How should we go about comparing Bruce and Gretta's ideas?  I would be happy to do a series of posts about their respective approaches to God, Jesus, the Bible, and so on, if you like.   I was thinking about writing a blog, but it might be fruitful to talk about my impressions first.  

Let me know, because this is your thread .

Yes, paradox3, I think Bruce wrote from the Yellow/Turquoise level. And this is why he is seen as elitist by some of his readers, just as the whole concept of Spiral Dynamics is perceived to be elitist.

But only from a Green perspective. From the Yellow/Turquoise perspective, a leader is the utmost server. Bruce has my vote of confidence as a spiritual leader.

Oh, I forgot that this was my thread!  Well, paradox3, just go ahead with your series of comparisons between Gretta and Bruce. It'll be interesting.

Aren't these wonderful wondercafe threads like art? One starts to spin out a thread, and then sees it take off into unexpected directions. Well, that's natural evolution—and real art!

But is wondercafe evolving toward increasing beauty, diversity, and awareness?

Seeing the latest assault from the extreme Right, one might doubt it, but even natural evolution, as any artistic process, has its ups and downs.

Like our RevJohn said: It's a bumby ride to heaven.  

Hi Arminius, 

Thanks for that.  Let's start with the two authors' ideas about God.

SANGUIN AND VOSPER:  IDEAS ABOUT GOD

In the first chapter of WWG, Gretta writes eloquently about the spiritual dimension of life.  “Within that dimension we know and celebrate relationships, explore meaning, develop our value systems and experience love … This spiritual dimension causes us to explore what is utterly beyond description; we try to pin it down with words such as Spirit, the Ground of all Being, Ultimate Concern, the Divine and God.”

Is there a reality, external to human beings, which we can call spirit or Spirit?

At this point, we are told that this question is beyond the scope of WWG.  However, in a later chapter, Gretta writes “the ultimate post-modern critique is the disintegration of the concept of God altogether”.

She urges us to understand God as a human construction, and suggests that we cease using the word God completely. Alternatively, small “g” god can be utilized to describe a set of life enhancing values.  “Unlike the former God, this one has no agency.”

Referring to authors Lloyd Geering and Don Cupitt, she poses the questions  - - What does the church look like beyond Christianity, and more radically yet, what does Christianity look like beyond God?

In Emerging Church, Bruce Sanguin does not encourage us to abandon talk of God.  As Doug Todd said in the Vancouver Sun,  “Sanguin, instead, pursues intellectually defensible ways to redeem God and Jesus from the conservative Protestants and Catholics who tend to dominate the news.  He does so with creative panache.”

In his book, Bruce does not define God, but asks, “What is the new thing that God is doing in your congregation?”  He argues that our churches need to become creative centers of emergence, and he talks passionately about the “kin-dom” of God.

Hi paradox3:

Buddhism and some other Eastern religions are said to be "a-theistic" or "non-theistic" because they don't have the concept of a supernatural God that created the universe and is separate from the universe. They just believe in a spiritual universe.

Whether or not God exists depends on how we define "God." To me, God is the spiritual universe. Bruce does not define God as the spiritual universe because he does not want to alienate the traditionalists among his congregation and denomination, but I think he would agree with my definition of God as the self-transformative, self-evolutionary or self-transcendent universe—in a state of synthesis.

The most astonishing parts of the recently published "Gospel of Judas" (I think the "Judas" of that Gospel is Judas, brother of Jesus) are the claim that Judas knew Jesus' teachings  the best, and Judas' definition of God as the "Great Self-Generative Spirit," who generated the universe by and out of  ITself.

I think we Christians need not get rid of the concept of God, neither do we have to write God in small letters. But there is a dire need to re-define God as The Self-Generative Cosmic Whole!

There is only One Self-Generative Cosmic Whole; there is only One Energy, and this Energy appears to be endowded with the innate creator quality to transcend ITS states. (In scientfic terms, cosmic energy is a singularity that can neither be created nor destroyed, and appears to be in a state of synthesis.)

The lamps are different,

But the light is the same:

One God, one Energy, one Light, one Light-Mind,

Endlessly emanating all things.

-Rumi

Hi Arminius, 

On page 57 of Emerging Church, Bruce writes:

"A-theism literally means to not believe in a theistic God, one who lives outside the cosmos, but who intervenes every once in a while to sort us out.  I don't believe in that kind of God either."

He does not provide a precise definition of God, but he clearly believes in the reality of God.  

In Darwin, Divinity and the Dance of the Cosmos, he states that his life in Christ began as a "born-again".  He describes Marcus Borg's earlier and emerging paradigms, and states, "I have experienced both ways of being a Christian." 

In Emerging Church, he refers also to Brian McClaren, and complements Borg and McClaren's definitions by introducing a scientific understanding of emergence. 

SANGUIN AND VOSPER:  IDEAS ABOUT JESUS

Bruce states, “To be Christian is to set oneself and one’s community in an ongoing dialogue with Jesus and his teachings.”  He frequently refers to abundant life in Christ, and suggests that our lives can be transformed by wrestling with what has been passed down to us in the New Testament.

In contrast, Gretta writes,  “It is impossible to lift an appropriate moral high ground out of Jesus’ life, works, and sayings.”  She calls for a focus on life enhancing values, and encourages us to rely on our own best thinking.

“I think that in a generation or two we might stop using the term Christian”, she told Charles Lewis of the National Post.  “The central story of Christianity will fade away,” Gretta explained.  “The story about Jesus as the symbol of everything that Christianity is will fade away.” 

I hope it's ok to jump in at this point, Arminius and Paradox.......

This is so interesting to me, because your latest post, Paradox, about Sanguin defining Christianity as being in dialogue with Jesus and his teachings, and Vosper's belief that the central story of Christianity will eventually fade away, outlines a dilemma I've been sorting through myself the last couple of years.

For me, as soon as we separate the Jesus of history from the Jesus Christ of the Gospel testimonies, we are re- defining Jesus as a great Wisdom teacher, no more and no less divine than each of us, and we  see the Christ consciousness as something inherent in available to us all, from a variety of diverse paths.    So, when we as Christians define ourselves as Bruce does, (and I do, more or less)  it seems inevitable to me, if we are intellectually and spiritually honest, that we will eventually leave behind the Gospel story as central to our faith, as Vosper says, and open up to embrace the Wisdom that is found beyond the Bible, whether that be in other faiths, in the natural world or in the secular world.  Which is of course one of the foundational values of Unitarianism.  And this has been my dilemma.......am I spiritually at home in the United Church, which, if it continues to emerge, I see as eventually embracing Unitarianism, or am I spiritually at home in the Unitarian church, which I see as the eventual outflow of emerging Christianity?

I'm  not looking for an answer to my dilemma, btw!  It's just something I've been thinking through for quite some time.  Sometimes at church I feel almost "trapped" by limiting ourselves to the Bible, and some of the male, theistic imagery that is used, and  yet the depths of Christianity are so holy and so beautiful that I don't want to leave it behind me.  lol - I've been told I think too much!

Anyway, I just wanted to share that, and thank you for your discussions here.  They are meaningful and helpful for me to read.

Welcome to our discussion, Diana!

Well, Diana, you are spiritually at home in the Cosmic Spirit. Does that end your dilemma?

When he explains the paradigm shift that the emerging Church is undergoing, Bruce describes it as a shift from the redemption-centered paradigm to a creation-centered paradigm, wherein God works through us, and we become God's co-creators and co-evolvers, continuously and intentionally co-evolving the universe toward ever increasing complexity, beauty, diversity, consciousness and compassion.

This, of course, is leaving Christian traditionalism way behind. But Bruce says tradition is not traditionalism, and we don't have to discard one in order to discard the other.

How far we can retain tradition without retaining traditionalism remains to be seen.

I, for one, would welcome a merger between the Unitarian Universalists and the United Church.

Hi Arminius - well, that knowledge that we are all at home in the Cosmic Spirit makes ALL of life pretty sacred, wherever we are, doesn't it?  And a merger between the UC and the UU would definitely solve the worship dilemma! Who knows, a few decades  (or generations) down the road?

The more I've thought about this recently, though, the more I realize that every intentional faith community is sacred, so I'll probably just suck up the externals and stay where I am, and continue to emerge with my friends, and see where it takes us! 

I do love Sanguin's imaginings of us as co-creators  (gosh, we used that term in discussions here at WC when it first started up....nice to see it used more widely!), and that's why I couldn't see myself at Vosper's church, I don't think.   Altho' not all UU's are theists, the UU church is open to theistic understandings, but I didn't get a sense of that same openness when reading Vosper's book. I wonder if I misunderstood that, though?   For me, Jesus is like "the finger pointing to the moon", who guides us towards a Divine Reality;  without an openess to that Divine Reality, I can understand how she does not feel that Jesus' life and teachings are especially useful to her.

Diana, 

It is wonderful to have you on this thread with us.  Despite how much I enjoy chatting with Arminius, I was hoping we would not be alone in this conversation .

Hi paradox3:

In The emerging Church Bruce also mentions that he started out as an Evangelical. I assume that this is where his mystical inclination comes from. Appearantly, he has shaken off the absolutism and dogmatism of his Evangelical past, but retained the mysticism. Got rid of his disaster and kept his dignity, eh?

If we go with the evolutionary flow that Bruce proposes, then the story of Jesus as the central story of our faith may well fade in time, and we may eventually end up where Gretta wants us to be. But Gretta appears to be forcing the change rather than letting it evolve. But then maybe she sees herself as actively evolving she change she envisions?

Both Bruce and Gretta want to get rid of traditionalism. Gretta pours out the baby with the bath water by discarding tradition along with traditionalism, whereas Bruce is trying to retain Christian tradition.

Their different approaches may be due to them being on different levels of the Spiral Dynamics. She's an intellectual of the Orange level, he's a mystic of the Turquoise level. This, to me, explains it all.

Yes, Diana, the knowledge that we are all at home in the Cosmic Spirit makes everything sacred, even the discussion we are having here. Makes communication into communion, doesn't it?

"Wherever there are two or three gathered in my name, I will be there among them."

Is this is tradition—or traditionalism?

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

There must be a paradox here, somewhere, Arminius.  What do you think?

Hi Diana, 

I thought that Gretta's book was somewhat contradictory in this regard.  In the opening chapter, she presents a stance which is pretty much agnostic when it comes to God.  Later, she argues that God is a human construction. 

If you were to attend worship at West Hill and at a Unitarian fellowship, you would see very little difference in the worship style.  Gretta's argument, of course, is that her worship style functions as a "blank slate", and can accommodate a variety of theistic, non-theistic, and secular perspectives. 

In the flagship Unitarian congregation here in Toronto, members form small groups based on particular interests, and they meet in different locations around the city.  There is a Buddhist group, and a "Following the Way of Jesus" group, for example.  UU congregations covenant to uphold the Unitarian principles, and encourage members to embark on their own spiritual journeys. 

To some extent, Gretta's approach has the same goal.  I think the difference is that she is seeking to reduce the Christian faith and other traditions to their core values.  She is very much opposed to Christian imperialism, yet this could represent imperialism of another sort - - if taken to the extreme. 

In the study guide to WWG (available on the CCPC website for a small fee), Scott Kearns poses the questions, "How might progressive views deteriorate into a new "dogma"?  How can this result be avoided?"

These are good questions, indeed, and I applaud Scott for asking them.

Hi paradox 3:

The paradox is that cultivating tradition is traditionalism. One can't have one without the other.

So we just have to make up our minds which traditions to cultivate, and which to discard.

I don't want to throw out the Jesus baby with the dirty bath water. Let's just get rid of the dirty water, dry him off, powder and cream him, and wrap him in some clean swaddling cloths.

Yes, Gretta may just be replacing traditonalist dogma with progressive dogma. How can this be avoided?

Simple. By getting away from dogmatism into the pure experience of Spirit: Mysticism! This is something Gretta woefully negelected in her book, but Bruce emphasized in his. Well, what do you expect? Gretta is Orange; Bruce is Turquoise.

Hi Arminius, 

Mysticism and the spiritual disciplines can be very connected, don't you think?  (Or do you?) 

Bible study and meditation are spiritual disciplines, of course, so let's compare Bruce and Gretta's approaches to the Bible.

SANGUIN AND VOSPER:  IDEAS ABOUT THE BIBLE 

In the process of spiritual renewal, Bruce’s congregation affirmed that the whole Bible, including the Old Testament, was central to their identity. 

Bruce recognizes that the Bible seems to sanction violence, with God actually carrying out some of this violence.  He reminds us that the Bible is a collection of books, which has itself been subject to an evolutionary process. 

Echoing the words of Marcus Borg, Bruce states that Bible study is extremely important if we are to take the bible seriously, but not literally.  In his opinion, mainline churches are too complacent about teaching biblical literacy (not to be confused with literalism).  “As Christians, we have a sacred story that is the context of our own life stories, and we need to learn it.”

His church offers an ongoing program that is primarily focused on the content of the Bible.  There is also a continuous study program that focuses on personal transformation.  Participants learn to read the stories metaphorically.  Bruce feels that most mainline church members have never learned to read scripture this way. 

In With or Without God, Gretta devotes many pages to disputing the concept of the Bible as TAWOGFAT  (The Authoritative Word of God For All Time).  She expresses concern about interpretations of the bible that have led to tribalism and religion’s destructive aspects.  She notes the assumption that God exists, which “permeates the whole book.” 

Gretta compares the bible to the works of Shakespeare, and she doesn’t consider it to be pivotal for Christian faith.  We are told that the bible is not reliable as a source of moral guidance, and Jesus is described as “a first century peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team”.

Hi paradox3:

Mysticism is just a confusing buzzword that really means spiritual experience. And the ultimate purpose of all spiritual disciplines is spiritual experience, as well as the understanding of spiritual experience.

The Bible is based largely on mystical accounts, which reflect the culture of their times, the Red (warrior) and Blue (authoritarian) stage of spiritual evolution. This has to be duly considered when studying the Bible. Although divinely inspired, the Bible nevertheless reflects the personal and cultural bias of its authors and that of their time and place.

When the Bible is read with that in mind, then Bible study can indeed be fruitful. Although Bruce's congregation has made biblical literacy into one of their non-negotiables, our congregational book study group left this open. My personal opinion is that, if we want to continue the cultural tradition of Christianity, then biblical literacy is important. It is, however, not vitally or ultimately important.

In this day and age, nobody, except perhaps for a few fundamentalists, regards the Bible as the literally true word of God for all times. I think Gretta has wasted her time devoting several pages to dispute that.

What Gretta said about Jesus may fit the historical Jesus, but not the archetypal Jesus, whom we have constructed around the historical personage. This Jesus archetype—the idealized version of Jesus— is the incarnate deity and the foremost teacher, saint, and sage of our faith. I see no need to get rid of him.

Just want to let you guys and gals know that although I've never read this book and I'm not that involved with the church to have much of an opinion on it's direction, I do find your conversation interesting.

I have such mixed feelings about the Bible.  On one hand, I think it can't be set aside as central to our faith, because it tells our story.  On the other hand - yikes!  Without a reliable guide to teach a metaphorical/mythical hermeneutic, and to set the historical/social context for the different writings, the Bible is a terribly confusing guide to faith.   And while I'm a theology-geek and find this all really fascinating, a lot of people don't have the time in their busy lives to spend the hours and years making sense of it all.   So in a way, I see Gretta's point - as a stand alone text, the Bible maybe isn't of much more value to us than many other books of Wisdom.  But I think Bruce's approach is better - to ask people to commit to a certain minimal level of biblical literacy, so that the Bible can help inform people's faith rather than (as is often the case in my experience) challenge or even destroy it.

Gosh, Arminius - I wrote a paper when I was studying at the UofA on who Jesus was to me.  I wrote about him as both historical figure and mythical embodiment of the human connection to the Divine, and all humanities hopes and visions for what it could become and be.   The word I was missing was   ARCHETYPE!!  Man, I wish I could do a re-write, now.  Thanks for that!

Hi Arminius, 

Bruce writes that our denomination functions primarily from a postmodern (Green) center of gravity, but 70% of the world's religions function out of a Blue value system.  I suspect that much of Gretta's argument which rejects the Bible as TAWOGFAT is aimed at the Blue level. 

She does not use the language of spiral dynamics of course.  She refers to Fowler's stages of spiritual development, and talks about casting her readers on to the "sea of disbelief", which is Fowler's stage four (Individuative-Reflective).  It equates to Marcus Borg's period of "critical thinking".  I would say it is roughly equivalent to the Orange level in Spiral Dynamics. 

During the WWG book study, some folks found that her arguments against the Bible as TAWOGFAT resonated quite deeply.  Maybe these individuals had never been introduced to the style of Bible study which Bruce advocates :) 

Gretta specifically rejects Borg's ideas about metaphor, primarily because she feels the concept of metaphor is difficult for the previously unchurched to grasp.  This is the basis of her argument for more accessible language. 

Bruce, on the other hand, encourages newcomers to wrestle with scripture.

Thanks, Diana. Ancient Greek culture is full of archetypes. They aren't necessarily gods or godesses, just embodiments of ideals, sometimes based on a historical personage, sometimes not.

I patricularly like the archetype Diotima: "She who conquers through love." We named one of our granddaughters Diotima, and she actually grew up to live up to the archetype!

Hi Neo, 

Glad to read that the conversation is interesting for you. 

Meredith will be co-ordinating the next book study, which will look at Diane Butler Bass' Christianity for the Rest of Us.  She will be getting it started sometime soon.

Yes, paradox3, Gretta's book is an indiscrimate rejection of the Blue level, a typical backlash of Orange against all that is Blue.

Yes, she dismisses metaphorical interpretation, and reasons that it is difficult if not impossible for most people to separate the metaphorical from the literal. I don't agree. I take the Bible, our liturgy and hymns, metaphorically. If I took all that stuff literally, I wouldn't be able to go to church!

Hi Arminius, 

Gretta writes on page 302 of WWG that "we need to become literalists about our language, using metaphor and symbol only when it would never be mistaken for truth".  I disagree with her, because I believe that metaphor and myth are often the only way to make sense of God and faith.

She alludes to this in her discussion of Fowler's stage five, where metaphor and paradox can be appreciated.  However, she never asks "How can the church encourage people to move into this stage?"  Rather, she defaults to ethics, and argues that we need to distill Christianity down to its core values.  Doug Todd wrote in the Vancouver Sun: 

"Instead of exploring Christian "belief" in the transcendent possibilities associated with "God" and a cosmic Christ, Vosper argues at length that her church should debunk divinity and focus on ethics: on community, justice and truth."

Yes, paradox3, Gretta argues in favour of secular humanism, and denies the transcendent and Divine aspect of being, at a time when the concept of a "Sacred Universe" is put forward by leading scientists?

I think Gretta is behind the times.

Hi Arminius, 

Gretta talks about the sacredness of love and life, so I don't categorize her as a "secular humanist" - - not exactly.  Maybe "religious humanist" or "post-Christian" would be more accurate?  

Carrying on now with the comparison between the two authors...

SANGUIN AND VOSPER:  IDEAS ABOUT SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT

Bruce Sanguin uses the work of Dr. Clare W. Graves, who noticed that worldviews and value systems evolved in a developmental fashion.  Human societies and biological life forms “escape to a higher order” as they deal with new challenges and life conditions.  Graves called his model Spiral Dynamics.   Don Beck later introduced colour coding of the values systems, which Bruce explains in Emerging Church.

In Chapter 6 of WWG, Gretta refers to the work of developmental psychologist James Fowler, who described stages of faith.  She aligns Marcus Borg’s stages of pre-critical naiveté, critical thinking, and post-critical naiveté with Fowler’s stages 3, 4 and 5 respectively. 

Fowler’s stages 3, 4 and 5 roughly correlate with Sanguin’s Blue, Orange and Green value systems. 

Interestingly, Fowler and Graves (also Sanguin) go beyond Borg’s stages, and introduce a further level.  Fowler’s Stage 6 is known as Universalizing Faith, which is inclusive of all, and is actually very rare.  These individuals value diversity, and are able to fellowship with persons at all other stages and from all faith traditions. 

Graves talks about Tier 2 value systems, which incorporate the Yellow and Turquoise stages.  Only 2% of the population is said to be at this level.  (Arminius  explained these stages very nicely in the opening post of this thread.) 

Hi paradox3: So Gretta admits that life is sacred, but says that spirtuality may be a human invention? Hmm.

When using words, we always deal with semantics. Sacred, Spiritual, Divine, Transcendent—they all mean much the same to me, but maybe not to other people. Those who got burned by traditionalism may shy away from the hurtful fire, and discard all traditional language, but still feel spirtual, and couch their spiritual feelings in terms like "sacred."

From what you say, it looks like Gretta may be at the Orange/Green level of spiritual evolution rather than Orange. Well, maybe she'll surprise us all and escape to Tier 2 with her next book?

Hi Arminius, 

Words are fascinating creations, aren't they?  While I think it is important to explore matters of faith intellectually (worship God with our minds), we often bump into problems with the very definitions of our words. 

There was a great example of this recently on a thread where we were discussing the golden rule.  We had to take a step back and examine how we were all defining the golden rule.  There were some subtle differences in our definitions, which surprised me quite a bit.  We had to figure this out so we could carry on with the conversation. 

Story, music and metaphor help us to get "beneath" our words, I think.  They help us to experience God, not just talk about God and our belief systems.

Hi paradox3:

As you know, I believe in God as the Cosmic Synthesis, and I believe Synthesis to be the ultimate state of being. Although this state is defined as utter at-one-ment with everything and everyone, including God, it really is ineffable, and beyond words. But IT can be felt and experienced, and is being felt and experienced, once we get away from conceptual thinking and turn inward in quiet meditation or contemplation.

When we engage in battles of semantics or in heated discussions over meanings, it is best to take a step back and immerse oursleves in the cosmic synthesis every now and then. Afterwards we can return to the debate, renewed and refreshed, and perhaps able to see things differently or more clearly than before.

I think both Gretta's and Bruce's book came out of their deep and genuine desire for change for the better. There are negative aspects to our religious tradition. It seems tempting to throw out all tradition, and start anew, but if we don't get rid of our jaundiced eye, then the new tradition may have new disasters, and in that regard not be all that different from the old.

"If thine right eye offends thee, pluck it out!" said Jesus. It seems best to get rid of the jaundiced eye, and then we can, perhaps, keep what is good and great about our sacred tradition, and discard the rest. Or, in Bruce's language, retain the dignities and discard the disasters of each stage of spiritual evolution.

The question then remains "how do we get rid of the jaundiced eye?"

Well, we can't. The jaundiced eye is our conceptual eye, the eye of reason, and we need it. But we can keep it clear and free of jaundice by frequently bathing in in the cleansing waters of the pure experience of the cosmic Synthesis, a.k.a. God.

And, if one has become burned by "God" language, one can always call IT "Kosmsos," or whatever. IT doesn't care. But we Christians usually call IT God.

In Cosmic Unity,

Arminius

Hi Paradox, I absolutely agree with you that myth and metaphor are necessary in our attempts to explore the meaning of the Holy;  I also take Gretta's point that the church cannot just continue to use the same language it always has, and expect people to be able to make their own metaphorical sense of it.    I think this is asking a lot of people who are perhaps struggling to find their spiritual path in the midst of very busy, stressful lives, and no theological background, to take Sunday morning liturgy and make sense of it at a metaphorical level.  I do understand Gretta's desire to make worship accessible and meaningful to more people.  

On the other hand, I also think we could be offering up more opportunities for people to experience the Holy, rather than just hear about it - like you say - opportunities to experience sacred music:  hymns for sure but also chants like Taize which invoke a sense of the holy, to see or participate in the creation of sacred art, meal rituals like the Agape Meal, silent communal prayer, etc, etc. 

If we can experience the Mystery more for ourselves, then i think we will more naturally make sense of metaphors and myths in our sacred stories and liturgy, and create our own metaphors for our own lives.

Yes Diana, the truth lies within. Well said.

I love that image, Neo.  can I ask you where it comes from?

I googled 'inner light' under the images tab and found it there.

Awesome - thanks.

Hi Diana, 

Religious language is evolving, that is for sure.  We are still saying "the body of Christ, broken for you" in our communion liturgy, but some people are starting to question this. 

My minister uses material from Seasons of the Spirit when he prepares our prayers and liturgies.  I like it a lot -- it tends to be fairly "middle of the road". 

My minister has also done some writing for Seasons of the Spirit, and he went to Vancouver in the spring to meet with some of the other writers.  

Seasons of the Spirit is based on the common lectionary, and it includes both worship and study materials. 

Does Seasons of the Spirit also produce a Sunday School curriculum?  I think I remember using it when I used to teach SS a few years back.

Religious language is complex, isn't it?  I remember going to a big UC weekend event where we attended a workshop given by a VST prof who had come up with a complete reinterpretation of communion.  I thought it was wonderful, but another member of my congregation was on the verge of tears and wondered why the great story that was central to her faith was being eroded away.  It's a moment that's stuck with me and brought home the complexity of the paradigm shift(s) that Christianity (or at least mainline Protestantism) seems to be undergoing.

Hi Diana, 

Yes, Seasons of the Spirit includes Sunday School materials ... P3

Diana, 

Your story illustrates the dilemma of religious language very nicely. 

The "disconnect" between traditional worship and modern scholarship is a key premise in Gretta's book.  When we discussed WWG here on wondercafe, the idea of a disconnect resonated very deeply for a few posters.  I remember that you and Iwonder both addressed it in your comments. 

The solution that Gretta offers is illustrated in the Toolbox (Appendix) to WWG.  Arguing that her approach to worship is radically inclusive, Gretta eliminates all references to God, most references to Jesus, and de-emphasizes scripture.  Recently, the Lord's Prayer has been removed from the service at West Hill. 

The liturgy now celebrates life, draws people into community, and emphasizes life-enhancing values.  Worship at West Hill is very well done, and it incorporates the music which Scott Kearns (Gretta's husband) has been writing for the progressive movement in Canada.  Scott is a wonderful and gifted musician.

As I have said many times, (sorry to pull out my soapbox again), there is very little, if any, difference between the worship at West Hill and at the Unitarian churches I have visited.  I could certainly worship in either setting and find very little to disagree with. 

However, what is missing?  That became the issue for me at West Hill.  I can very much relate to the concerns of the member of your congregation, who felt that something important was being eroded away.

Gretta makes a valid point when she says that a stage 3 and a stage 5 (pre and post critical) church will look and sound very much the same.  However, I think there is some hyperbole in her contention about modern scholarship.  She clearly favours the theology of Lloyd Geering and Don Cuppitt over those who represent other strands of progressive Christian thought. 

Bruce Sanguin offers an alternative way of moving the church forward, and I am encouraged by his ideas.

Hi paradox3:

I have never been to any of the progressive services at West Hill, but I can well imgaine that the spirit of The Spirit is missing.

Although I regard the transcendental or spiritual as natural, and explain it in terms of scientific philosophy—which is a very progressive stance—I also favour traditional expressions of spirituality.

For instance, God, to me, is the self-transcendent universe—the universe of science. I believe I have experienced IT in a vision, but the vision came after a fervent prayer to Jesus Christ to grant me a revelation of God. Thus, to me, traditional Christian spirituality has become manifest in combination with a very progressive, scientific spirtuality, and this has become my spiritual stance: both traditional and pogressive!

Transcend and include; development through envelopment: This appears to be the principle of God's creative process, as well as the principle of natural evolution, which is God's creative process—in which we are co-creators.

Hi All God bless You.......

I really appreciated this Open discussion......I did learn and grew from what was discussed....Gods word is everywhere and it teaches no matter where it is ...it answered some of the questions I had been seeking answers for .....

Thankyou Everyone who put it together and all who visited .....

The Glory of the Lord Is Upon WonderCafe....

IJL:bg