Can We Rebuild After Deconstruction?

[JosephM]

Yes, yes, yes (how many times can I say yes?)

 

seventy times seven

I wasn't looking for agreement, just expressing my 2 cents but thanks anyway.

[minsocal]

Rats! You mean I've been fooled again?

 

I don't know nuttin' about concrete extraverts, but I didn't think de Quincey and Sorensen were describing personality types. Rather they were describing an epistemology. To the point is this quote from the article:

 

They are talking about consciousness and theory of mind. Personality type is intimately linked with mind. Different personality types think differently and aquire knowledge differently. Your quote is pure Jung:

 

"For example, it is not accurate to say that in every case where postconquest reason encounters preconquest liminal consciousness the result is obliteration of the indigenous mind. This may well be true culturally-at least I'm not aware of any meeting between groups bearing modern reason and groups using primal knowing where the modern mind was consumed by the indigenous mind. But it is not true personally, at the level of individuals. We know from the literature (anthropological and psychological), and from copious anecdotal reports, that when a modern, reason-dominated individual ingests powerful psychoactive plant-derived substances such as ayahuasca or synthetic compounds such as LSD, or engages in some other powerful mind-altering practice such as intensive drumming or dancing, the overwhelming effect is that reason takes a back seat. It is swamped by non-rational feelings and other ways of knowing-and according to many of the participants in these "experiments" or "rituals" the states and contents of such "altered" consciousness are highly meaningful, informative, and veridical. In these instances, primal, shamanic knowing does overshadow rational knowing."

 

Jung made this observation nearly 100 years ago, although a great deal of discussion on the subject predates Jung. The concrete extravert personality type is simply closer to the Preconquest mentalty than other types. The Preconquest mentalty is but one step away from Jung's collective unconscious. A have a collection of definitions from Jung that when pasted together read almost exactly like de Quincey and Sorensen.

[David]

seventy times seven

I wasn't looking for agreement, just expressing my 2 cents but thanks anyway.

Well you got agreement anyway. I'm your cheerleader again.

[PantaRhea]

Thank you for this. There are many ways you could go with this including talking “about” things but I thought the key question was “Are we looking for decisive facts about consciousness or for enlightening lived experience?” I have said elsewhere that for me epistemology is more important than theology and I agree with much that was written here. It struck me that after a “cultural collapse” as exemplified by the New Guinea experience the question of “reconstruction” is raised. What do we do now? Too often philosophers raise great questions and get us excited about the “enlightened lived experience” and then we ask them “what do we do now”? And of course they say “how should I know—I’m just a philosopher”. The writer here concludes that “the task of great philosophers is to find how these uncommon truths cohere in a common reality”. That would be a great correct belief system but I’m not sure how that relates to an “enlightening lived experience”. He points us to the depth found in "mystical knowing" but then seems to default to his comfort language of philosophy. What do we do now I guess would be a question for our task of reconstruction.

 

I love the question. I guess my short answer is that when we gather together with the intention of creating community, we need to learn to shut up. What may be more important than sermons, or dialog (and I definitely prefer dialog over sermons if I am to invest my time), is the community (and meaning) that is created from Emptiness. It's in the silence that we listen to Spirit.

[David]

I love the question. I guess my short answer is that when we gather together with the intention of creating community, we need to learn to shut up. What may be more important than sermons, or dialog (and I definitely prefer dialog over sermons if I am to invest my time), is the community (and meaning) that is created from Emptiness. It's in the silence that we listen to Spirit.

I see you are going to the next step. Good for you.

[David]

For some I may be moving too fast. For others not fast enough. I started this thread out with this suggestion: It’s that “deeper foundation for faith” that I want to explore as the basis for construction after deconstruction. So I would suggest that we begin by thinking about what is “deeper” than correct action or correct belief? If you can not imagine anything “deeper” then no further comment from me will be helpful. But if you can imagine something “deeper” then let’s talk about what that is and how we can build upon it after deconstruction.”

 

I have related that “deeper foundation for faith” to all of those things that can not be deconstructed and as we also noted to all of those things that are experienced with what has been described as a “knowing” that is either pre-rational, post-rational or non-rational. Isn’t it amazing that some “rational” people can recognize this?

 

But it seems to me that either you recognize it or not. I am such a universalist that I make the audacious claim that everyone experiences it. But I am a realist in noting that not everyone recognizes it. And that “recognition” can not be argued about. It is either there or it’s not.

 

So I start with a fundamentalist base much like DavidK who starts all of his logical arguments with “Does God exist”? The answer to that question tells DavidK whether he will be able to complete his arguments or not. I would suggest an equally fundamental question while suggesting that DavidK is asking the wrong question. My question is whether you recognize the “deeper foundation for faith” or not. As I said, I am such a universalist that I make the audacious claim that we all have the experiences, the only difference is not everyone recognizes it.

 

Please be reminded that this “recognition” that I am talking about is not related to a correct belief. It is related to a “pre rational” or “non rational” experience. So the world is not fundamentally divided in my mind by correct belief. It is divided between those that recognize this “pre rational” or “non rational” experience and those that do not. And that “recognition” many times is not a verbal recognition and maybe not even a conceptual recognition. It maybe just as simple as being overcome by gratefulness in the delivery room and stopping to notice that.

 

So for me fundamentally the “first step” for reconstruction is to start with “the reality” of what can only be called God. That “first step” is huge and as some have noted it may take a lifetime. But reconstruction it seems to me can not wait for everyone to “get it”.

 

I would suggest that the world is united by the fact that everyone experiences God but the world is divided between those that recognize God and those that do not. Now the question becomes what do you do with this division? Do you refuse to accept that the division exists? Do you accept it but “do” nothing with it? How you handle that division seems to be the “second step” for reconstruction (except for the individual on a private spiritual journey---those of you who are limited to that may now want to jump ship—you may want to join the reconstruction process for the rest of us later).

[minsocal]

I love the question. I guess my short answer is that when we gather together with the intention of creating community, we need to learn to shut up. What may be more important than sermons, or dialog (and I definitely prefer dialog over sermons if I am to invest my time), is the community (and meaning) that is created from Emptiness. It's in the silence that we listen to Spirit.

 

I will relate this as it is very fresh in my mind. This last Sunday I went to my church as usual. Just before the service began, an old friend walked in that I/we had not seen in 18 months. There were hugs all around and as the sevice began we sat down together. We have a meditation segment in our worship service. It starts with the congregation chanting with a cantor signing over the chant. Then it goes to total silence. About 30 seconds into the silence I felt tears streaming down my face. I'm having the same reaction as I type this. I offer no explanation, as I have none. I do not want to corrupt what was a beautiful experience. I'll leave it as it was and cherish the memory.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Can this same reasoning being applied to Christianity? Or are Christians still basically "Ptolemains"? Are we moving into some kind of spiritual "Copernican" view that changes how we view either reality or spiritual reality?

 

And, probably my most important question on this subject, does it really make a practical difference in everyday lives?

 

billmc

 

I think the Copernican/Ptolemain metaphor works for me. I appreciate your putting it forth.

 

I believe the reconstructed Christianity does make a practical difference in everyday life, sometimes just in small ways. For example, a woman I know through boy scouts is difficult for me to get along with, since she comes off as condescending to me. Because of Jesus' teachings about reconciliation and loving our enemies, I decided to talk with her about it, even though my gut reaction was to let someone else deal with her and never talk with her again. She was initially defensive, but since I reassured her that it was valuable for us to get along well, given that it would help the boy scout thing run more smoothly, we agreed on some things that would help us relate better. That does not mean she still does not push my buttons, but I feel compassion for and patience with her, since it seems like she has this kind of trouble relating to others as well. She told a friend of mine, "Janet and I used to argue a lot, but we've talked about it, and now we're best friends." A testament to God's work in my life.

 

Also, I used to be the kind of person who would avoid telling people about my mistakes (in fact I would tell little white lies about them.) If I was running late, I would say I had an important phone call or something. Because Jesus tells us that when we are weak, we are strong, I vowed to just tell the truth when I goof up. Do you know what? It connects us to other people to share our weaknesses with them! People like knowing the real me better than the fake, perfect me.

 

Lastly, another way I think it makes a difference is in the way we try to help people. Jesus does not just call us to love those who love us. His teachings call us to reach beyond that. Jesus was the motivator for me getting involved helping at an economically disadvantaged school across town, instead of helping where my kids went to school. Volunteering at the neighborhood school would have been easier, but I don't think it would have answered the call of Jesus as well.

 

You all are probably tired of listening to my examples, and you may find them weak. Be honest.

 

Sometimes I think I have it all figured out, but then something new always comes up. Obviously the lessons learned in reconstruction are in flux, and it is a process, but it is an exciting journey. Together we would be stronger (testing each other's ideas and supporting each other's search) than if we try to do it alone. Thus the need for a spiritual community, a progressive church.

[minsocal]

It’s that “deeper foundation for faith” that I want to explore as the basis for construction after deconstruction. So I would suggest that we begin by thinking about what is “deeper” than correct action or correct belief? If you can not imagine anything “deeper” then no further comment from me will be helpful. But if you can imagine something “deeper” then let’s talk about what that is and how we can build upon it after deconstruction. Anyone interested? Don't be afraid to jump ahead of me and let us know what you think that "deeper foundation for faith" may look like.

 

All that I could add comes from experiencing the Eight Points instead and debating them. I attend a church that exemplifies the Eight Points quite well. A friend recently related to me that when she first joined she was deeply troubled with self doubts. Someone from the congregation walked up to her and said "I don't know you, and I don't know what problems you might be having. I just want you to know that you are in a safe place." It is hard to put into words or theory. The first Sunday I walked into the church I immediately knew I was "home". I guess I am saying that a safe and caring community could be a sufficient condition to carrying one to that "deeper foundation".

 

I talk a lot about a variety of intuitions and emotions. I will say this. I find that in that "safe" community, I am able to experience a wider and more genuine range of emotion than anywhere else. So I'll venture this. Beyond the intellectual "correct belief" or "correct action" there is the truly felt "correct belief" and associated felt "correct action".

[David]

Well you all are making me cry now.

Thanks for sharing.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"except for the individual on a private spiritual journey---those of you who are limited to that may now want to jump ship—you may want to join the reconstruction process for the rest of us later"

 

I think I am the one you are talking about here. I will wait and see what you conclude about the "something deeper" thing. I don't really understand what you've been driving at, and I know it is the way you want to proceed with this particular blog.

[David]

Well you all are making me cry now.

Thanks for sharing.

Well it took a minute but with some composure let me compose a short note.

 

I really miss being a part of a community that you describe. So maybe that is one reason for the tears.

 

But also I just think that “doing Church” does not have to be rocket science. And so many groups seem to do so many things to try to avoid the experiences rather than invite them.

[David]

"except for the individual on a private spiritual journey---those of you who are limited to that may now want to jump ship—you may want to join the reconstruction process for the rest of us later"

 

I think I am the one you are talking about here. I will wait and see what you conclude about the "something deeper" thing. I don't really understand what you've been driving at, and I know it is the way you want to proceed with this particular blog.

I guess I would have thought you would be the last to jump ship. Your commitment to your Church seems to be much more than a private spiritual journey.

 

I don't mind being quiet for a while. If you see "reconstruction" going in a different way or to a different place, please share.

[minsocal]

Well it took a minute but with some composure let me compose a short note.

 

I really miss being a part of a community that you describe. So maybe that is one reason for the tears.

 

But also I just think that “doing Church” does not have to be rocket science. And so many groups seem to do so many things to try to avoid the experiences rather than invite them.

 

I've been to a few churchs where everthing is so stiff and formal I get claustrophobic. By the way, have we ever discussed a video series called "Living the Questions"? We've been using it for nearly two years to construct prespectives on a multitude of subjects. Spong, Borg, Crossan and many others provide their views on a subject and then we sort of synthesize the collection.

[PantaRhea]

As far as what comes next... I think I'd like to share my plans. They can be found here.

I'd be interested in comments.

[David]

Well this at least raises a very important question. I can hear Janet in the background after my recent post about the nature of God. She may be saying “Well if I think of God as an entity and you have this Borg thing and then you tell me that you would have difficulty “doing Church” with me, then how is it that “correct belief” is not foundational”? Janet, is this what you were thinking? Well, I need a good night’s sleep to not appear like the fool that Fatherman said I would end up being. Good night. See you tomorrow.

[David]

Well this at least raises a very important question. I can hear Janet in the background after my recent post about the nature of God. She may be saying “Well if I think of God as an entity and you have this Borg thing and then you tell me that you would have difficulty “doing Church” with me, then how is it that “correct belief” is not foundational”? Janet, is this what you were thinking? Well, I need a good night’s sleep to not appear like the fool that Fatherman said I would end up being. Good night. See you tomorrow.

It seems to me that Don is asking the right questions. I like the focus on the early Christians being a diverse group. I think Don may learn much by looking at the history of the UU experience which has included conversations between those who claimed the existence of God and those who did not within a “hoped for” ethic of love and trust.

[David]

Organizations reflect all of the complexity that is human. Organizations ignore this basic fact at their own peril. For instance, all organizations need to respond to sex. If an organization attempts to hide from sex, then sex will find that organization. So organizations will and do create “procedures” on what to do about sex. That does not mean that an organization’s mission is sexual. It just means that organizations are a reflection of the complexity of being human.

 

Organizations reflect the fact that humans are “multi level”. The most successful organizations clearly understand the nature of the “level” that will be their focus and they organize accordingly. Organizations can not ignore the other “levels” that reflect that which is human but they can, do and should focus on the “level” that best reflects their “mission”. An organization must clearly understand it’s mission and organize around that mission.

 

Churches are organizations. They can and do organize with a special focus within the context of the multi level nature of humanity. Churches reflect the fact that humanity is an ambiguous mixture of infinite and finite aspects. As organizations they can focus on the infinite as long as they do not neglect the finite.

 

Any such organizational focus should be well known to the members of the organization. The “culture” of the organization should reflect that people know that “we as an organization are the best at who we are when you see us doing A, B and C.” Many organizations fail because the members are not clear about the mission or do not see that there is a clear mission. If people are free to come and go any such failure is the fault of the organization for not making the mission clear or clearly not having a mission. .

 

What I am suggesting is that the Church’s primary mission not be related to correct belief or correct action. That does not mean that the Church ignores either one. Both are extremely important to what it means to be human. And both have to be a part of what it means to be Church.

 

I have suggested that at the “deepest” part of humanity there is that which can not be deconstructed. The Church can choose to relate it’s mission to this “deepest” part of humanity. Correct belief and correct action then will be related to that mission because the primary mission can not ignore important parts of humanity. But everyone in the organization needs to understand that correct belief/action are not the primary missions.

 

Churches like all organizations can not ignore that which is cultural within humanity. However, it is possible to organize around that which is “counter cultural”. In other words if the culture lifts up race and social status then the Church can organize in response to that while being a “culture” for this “counter cultural” attitude. Within this attitude the Church can say that our mission is to speak to the “deepest” part of humanity which is the essential acceptance of all people as inherently worthy and we do that with the help of beliefs such as “race is not an indicator of intelligence”. In this way “correct belief” becomes a “tool” related to the “deeper” or “primary” mission.

 

Similarly Churches can organize to actually “internalize” the fact that correct beliefs are not the primary foundation for its existence. They can do some things that show themselves and others that this is true. They can organize their public gatherings not around sermons but around silence. This public display of something “deeper” than correct belief does not ignore correct belief, it just puts it in it’s proper place. However, the use of correct belief as a “tool” is still evident here even though it is being used in that “counter cultural” way.

 

With this background can Janet and I “do Church” together if we have a major difference about the nature of God? Well yes and no. Janet and I can minister together in a hospice environment where our “correct beliefs” are inconsequential when compared to the person who we are in relationship with. That person at the time of death may need to deal with their own “correct beliefs” as well as those several things that are “deeper”. Our mission is to help them do that without imposing our “correct beliefs”. At this “level” of humanity we can “do Church” together. There are several “levels” and many examples where “correct belief” is not essential to the ministry.

 

And certainly Janet and I can choose to ignore any theological difference and attend each other’s Church and thus show that relationship is more important than belief.

 

It seems to me that the theological disagreement reflected by Janet and I is related to when the Church needs to use the “tool” of correct belief about the nature of God. It may be amazing to some that this does not happen more often than it does. Our disagreement need not be about the primary mission of the church nor about the “deepest” identity of the Church that is related to the “deepest” nature of humanity.

 

The question becomes when is it appropriate to use the “tool” of correct belief? “Tools” are needed like organizational procedures to respond to all the levels that reflect the complexity of being human. The “tools” of correct belief and correct action respond to the very important parts of humanity that want to be honest and ethical and so there are places where it is appropriate to use these “tools”.

 

I would suggest that one such appropriate place can be the worship service (doesn’t have to be, but can be). That means that different Churches will be seen as different not necessarily because their “deepest” identity is different but because the “tools” they use reflect some intellectual, cultural, theological, ethical, etc “tools” that are used. So organizations that have the same basic mission do not look the same.

 

As far as the worship service is concerned much disagreement can be “contained” within that service so that the theology therein is “inclusive” of a wide range. Personally, I like a more specific theology and I can live with the fact that this would imply the need for more Churches. On the other hand the participants can actually ignore the theology within the service that is dramatically different than their own which would imply the need for fewer Churches (Amazing to me that Borg is in this camp attending a service that weekly includes the Nicene Creed). .

 

It is also important for the Church, like any organization, to educate people about the “tools” that they use. So it is desirable to have classes based upon the “Living the Questions” series versus classes on how to save your neighbor’s soul. That does not mean that the primary mission of the Church is to make sure that everyone can pass a qualifying test after attending a “Living the Questions” event. So to some extent at least Janet and I may “do Church” differently because of the tools that each Church may use. But again that should not be the primary mission of either Church. Hopefully in both Churches the primary mission will be related to that “deeper foundation for faith”.

 

Unfortunately most Churches consciously choose as their primary mission the spreading of “correct belief”. They consciously organize around this mission. It is abundantly clear to those within those Churches and to those outside that this is their primary mission and reason for existence. That is essentially what I am suggesting be changed.

[PantaRhea]

Any chance you could shorten up your messages, David? Because... "Brevity is the soul of wit" or something like that.

 

If my wife and I begin to establish neighborhood gatherings for the purpose of developing healthy relationships, are we planting churches?

[David]

Any chance you could shorten up your messages, David? Because... "Brevity is the soul of wit" or something like that.

Sorry. Last one should be the last long one associated with this thread. I have essentially said what I wanted to say when I started this thread. Where it goes from here, if anywhere, is up to you all. My basic premise was that in order to do recontruction we needed to have the Church (or something like it) and it needed to be based upon the "depth" that can not be deconstructed. Thanks for your participation.

[PantaRhea]

In answer to my own question, "church" might be simply be "ecclesia" - a gathering. "Where two or three are gathered together."

 

I'm done with the idea that "church" is composed of Christians. No more distinctions between us and them. Those who are inside and those who are outside the church. Who is not included in the "Body of Christ"?

[David]

In answer to my own question, "church" might be simply "ecclesia" - a gathering. "Where two or three are gathered together."

 

I'm done with the idea that "church" is composed of Christians. No more distinctions between us and them. Those who are inside and those who are outside the church. Who is not included in the "Body of Christ"?

Am I talking to Don? If so, sorry I did not speak directly to you above.

 

I come from a UU background and the UU Church seems to me to be exactly what you are looking for. Within the UU movement there has been a history of groups successfully led by persons who are not ordained such as me. The "house church model" would fit neatly into the UU umbrella. The groups that I led were composed of Christians and non-Christians and my services always attempted to reflect the "body of Christ" even though that was not many times apparent by the content of the service. The UU movement is a great movement in spite of some of my criticisms.

[PantaRhea]

Am I talking to Don? If so, sorry I did not speak directly to you above.

 

I come from a UU background and the UU Church seems to me to be exactly what you are looking for. Within the UU movement there has been a history of groups successfully led by persons who are not ordained such as me. The "house church model" would fit neatly into the UU umbrella. The groups that I led were composed of Christians and non-Christians and my services always attempted to reflect the "body of Christ" even though that was not many times apparent by the content of the service. The UU movement is a great movement in spite of some of my criticisms.

 

I was member of a UU Fellowship for awhile. Unfortunately, I didn't have a good experience with a "Reverend" who thought that her position came with the power to dominate and control others. My wife felt a real absence of the Spirit in the gatherings, and a large portion of the sermons consisted of diatribes against the "conservatives" which sounded very much like the diatribes against the "liberals" in the Christian evangelical churches we used to be a part of.

 

I've considered working within an organization like the UUs. Currently, my wife and I are attending services at a United Church of Christ. At this point, I think that my relationship with such organizations must be a symbiotic relationship. I don't think it is a good thing to plow in some one else's field.

 

Also, I don't think my neighbors would be interested in joining a UU church. It does seem that they are very interested in joining a gathering of neighbors.

[David]

I was member of a UU Fellowship for awhile. Unfortunately, I didn't have a good experience with a "Reverend" who thought that her position came with the power to dominate and control others. My wife felt a real absence of the Spirit in the gatherings, and a large portion of the sermons consisted of diatribes against the "conservatives" which sounded very much like the diatribes against the "liberals" in the Christian evangelical churches we used to be a part of.

I have certainly seen evidence of this within the UU movement and so I can understand.

 

I can also understand that those who you intend to work with may not want to associate with any denominational name.

 

My only suggestion then is that you do look at the history of the UU movement which as I said contains a lot of history about how groups attempted to include those who believe in God and those who do not under an umbrella of love and trust.

[PantaRhea]

So, I'm still interested in opinions:

 

If my wife and I begin to create neighborhood gatherings for the purpose of developing healthy relationships, are we planting churches?

 

And a related question, How inclusive is the "Body of Christ"?