David

The Christian Century reports:

“The recently dismissed head of the United Methodist Church’s main ecumenical and interreligious agency says his forced departure was due to disagreements over the body’s future direction….Larry D. Pickens said of his December 5 dismissal as chief executive of the denomination’s General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns….that the action stemmed in part from disagreements between him and some commission members over his support for what he called the ‘social justice dimension’ of ecumenical work. He said the commission often dealt with doctrinal and theological issues. ‘But in my mind, there has to be a social justice aspect for ecumenism to have a real impact,’ added Pickens, the first African American to lead the United Methodist commission.”

There is that word “unity” again used as the mission of an ecumenical group. I have no “inside” knowledge of what is going on here, but it seems that some wanted to come together based upon a theological vision and some thought that there was not enough emphasis on social justice.

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

Soma,

I agree with these comments and as always you have been able to say what you say very well.

Without pushing the ship/fleet/ocean thing too far (certainly not to the point of making it violent or military), I am concerned that the Unitarian Universalist Association has rejected the “ship” called the Unitarian Universalist Christian Association. They will no longer be accepted as an Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association. They have also rejected the UU Buddhist Fellowship, the Covenant of UU Pagans and the UUs for Jewish Awareness. The rules of rejection state that Affiliates of the UUA must have a “functional connection with UU congregations, a broad focus, and proof that they work in collaboration or coalition with other groups”. Evidently the UUA proposed that these “theologically based groups” should form an “umbrella group” and then that group may qualify as an Affiliate. This to me is a rejection of pluralism and a misguided attempt towards unity.

If I was going to form a group of people to help define unity for an ecumenical movement you Soma would be the chairperson. But unfortunately the call to unity never really gets beyond the making of the mission statement. You see this so often with ecumenical groups. They have fun creating the great sounding mission statement but the people calling for unity and making that statement then “jump ship” when the real work begins. That is because the real work can not be done based upon unity. A case in point involved the Episcopal Church and the Disciples of Christ as they became involved in the Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC) formally known as the Consultation on Christian Unity (COCU) (I think the name change may show that the early hope for “unity” was abandoned—we can only hope for “uniting”, not “unity”). First of all, there were the creeds. The Episcopal people wanted the relationship based upon the Nicene and Apostles creeds which are very important to the Episcopalians. The Disciples however are founded based upon “no creed but Christ”. Then, there was the matter of Bishops. The Episcopal people have the idea that Bishops would have to be consecrated in the historic apostolic succession whereas the Disciples have a strong history based upon the “priesthood of all believers”. Related conflicts are obviously who has authority to officiate at the Eucharist/communion, etc. Yet having run into the “real work” of the ecumenical movement participants are hesitant to drop the expectation “that Christians should not be divided” and they revert back to those great sounding mission statements. But obviously that goal has to be thrown overboard back into that ocean of unity when the ships are really trying to work out how to sail the ocean.

I think that the ecumenical movement needs to look at pluralism as a goal and drop those great mission statements that talk about unity. If this was done then the UU Christians could have a pluralistic relationship with the Unitarian Universalists. If this was done then the Disciples could have a pluralistic relationship with the Episcopalians. To hope for unity is needlessly discouraging for all.

Having said this I should stress that my discussion of unity has been in relationship to the topic of the ecumenical movement. There are other discussions about unity that relate to an individual’s relationship to the Divine and Soma you have been most helpful to me during those discussions.

I would suggest that the different currents in the ocean represent diversity and not pluralism. I am frustrated about all of the talk about diversity as though the recognition of diversity is a grand religious goal. Diversity is simply a fact that is easily observed. It does not automatically call for any response. Pluralism however demands a religious response to the other. So I would suggest that the goal of ecumenism should not be diversity but pluralism.

I like Soma’s ocean analogy and I certainly agree that the Divine is one. Again Diana Eck is on point and makes a distinction between the exclusivist, the inclusivist and the pluralist:

“In the moments of quiet…I enter into my church…and pray. Ranjini, my Hindu friend, goes to the temple in prayer in front of the large granite image of Vishnu. Are these two acts of worship structurally or experientially the same, but theologically different?...There are at least three possibilities. Perhaps only one of us worships the “true” god, as the exclusivist would say. Perhaps only one of us sees God fully and the other but partially and dimly, which is an inclusivist position. Or, in a pluralist view, perhaps we honor the same God, whom Christians and Hindus know by different names, experience in different ways, and see from different perspectives and angles….God transcends our complete comprehension…this would leave room for the self understanding of both…and would be a pluralist view.”

It may or may not be possible to "go beyond" ourselves at times and not be tied to the cultural names, the different ways of experience and our different perspectives and angles but, if that is possible, it is not possible, or as I noted before even desirable, in our ecumenical relationships. We may all be a part of the same ocean but we are on different ships sailing that ocean. I am not sure that those that jump overboard into the ocean are of much use to those trying to transverse the ocean waves in relationship to other ships. Certainly if you have no ship you can not make a fleet of ships which I think would be the goal of the ecumenical movement.

Diana Eck describes how pluralism stands between unity and relativism. She says:

“Relativism…means a lack of commitment to any particular community or faith. If everything is more or less true, I do not give my heart to anything in particular. There is no beloved community, no home in the context of which values are tested, no dream of the ongoing transformation of that community….The pluralist, on the other hand, stands in a particular community and is willing to be committed to the struggles of that community….there is no such thing as a generic pluralist. There are Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists, and even avowedly humanistic pluralists---all daring to be themselves, not in isolation from but in relation to one another….The challenge for the pluralist is commitment without dogmatism and community without communalism. The theological task, and the task of a pluralist society, is to create the space and the means for the encounter of commitments, not to neutralize all commitment….the joining together in a new “world religion” based upon the lowest common denominator or pieced together from several religious traditions is not the goal of pluralism. In some ways, it is the very antithesis of pluralism….We do not enter into dialogue with the dreamy hope that we will all agree….but to produce real relationship, even friendship, which is premised upon mutual understanding, not upon agreement.”

So far I do not see much discussion on topic (ecumenicalism or ecumenism, not ecumentalism). The history of ecumenism is filled with attempts to bring religious people together. The discussion does show why this is so difficult. I look at the difficulty at the level of “how we know what we think we know”. DavidK states that his source of understanding Christianity is the Bible. Without knowing DavidK I think that this represents a large divide between Progressive Christians and other forms of Christianity. Soma responds with a common Progressive Christian approach by stating that “the mere reading of the Bible does not make us a Christian” and Soma seems to lift up his goal for the world religions as being “Christ Consciousness”. My point is that Progressive Christians will tend to take some version of Soma’s argument and say that “the way you know what you think you know” is not by giving ultimate authority to the Bible.

This is important for the ecumenical movement. There are obviously many issues to be discussed but a primary issue has to do with the role of the Bible. I think that Soma is being naïve if he thinks that “sooner or later everyone will be healed and have the ability to see through the illusion of duality and materiality”.

From a very practical point of view the ecumenical movement should be based not upon a vision of unity but should be based upon a vision of plurality. There is a huge difference. Plurality assumes that some people will assume that “the mere reading of the Bible will make them a Christian” and those people will somehow have to be included in the ecumenical movement. However, as I have said before we are not going to go to the same Sunday school class. DavidK and I can share not only the same name but we can share quite a bit in the name of Christianity as long as we accept plurality as a goal and not unity. The world of duality may not be “real” in the ultimate sense but it is sure effective in the ecumenical movement. Those that can only speak in terms of ultimate unity will not be able to actually, effectively bring people together. I am grateful the TCPC is talking in terms of plurality and not unity.

One of the best discussions I have seen on topic is Diana Eck’s book “Encountering God, A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras”. She states “One can argue that the greatest religious tensions in the world in the late twentieth century are not found between the Western and Eastern traditions….they are the tensions that stretch between those at the opposite ends of the spectrum in each and every religious tradition….very often the religious conflicts that flare up have less to do with what one believes than with how one believes what one believes”. Progressives in every religious tradition have a different approach to “how one believes what one believes” than those that look to their scriptures for ultimate authority and end up making an idol of those scriptures. Although we may all at times feel that sense of unity that Soma talks about the real world of ecumenism will continue to be seen with this “dualism” and require pluralism as a response.

For those looking for some great discussions on polity it is worth looking at Planting God Communities

This comes from the current leader of the UU Christians. This is a group that seems to point to that Progressive Christian space between UU and UCC but I don’t think this group has filled that space yet. They may yet do so but I suspect that the forces in the UU will not let them succeed. Also, some within this group do not seem to associate with the “Progressive” label.

In any case, Ron Robinson has some great resources and ideas about what the future Church may look like.

He does not seem to conclude that a new denomination will be necessary but I wonder whether those UU forces will change his mind.

Well I’m back from the wilderness. Don’t get me started on which is the “real” world.

I am pleasantly surprised that this discussion has continued which indicates that people are thinking about it even if they do not agree with me that we need a new denomination. I continue to hope that the future of Progressive Christianity will not be limited to people who are already somewhat satisfied with the current available organizations. My original post suggests that those Progressives that can find some place to be should continue in that place. My suggestion is that there is a bunch of us who have no place. I have tried but I am not able to go to the same denomination that accepts those who run their lives (and perhaps our country) based upon Rapture Theology, accepts those who think that evolution is theology and will not openly question those that maintain that the atonement is still open for discussion. There is no “middle ground” here folks.

However, all of the major denominations cloud this truth by claiming Christ and so Christ becomes all things to all sorts of positions. The recent reference to Bob Funk is appropriate. It seems clear to me that Funk, Spong, Borg, and others are helping define what Progressive Theology looks like. Although Borg and McClaren think well of each other and would make great neighbors I think both agree that there is a basic divide between an atonement based theology and Progressive theology. This “theological fight” is not over yet but I am of the opinion that the rejection of the Rapture and the Atonement will be one sign of a Progressive Christian. We will continue to have great neighbors that teach their kids this stuff, we just can’t be in the same Church.

However it is one thing to recognize that there is no theological “middle ground” between Rapture Theology and Progressive Theology and quite another thing to think that there is a Progressive Theology that can organize Progressives into a new denomination. I have suggested that it may not be possible for Liberals/Progressives to organize based upon theological agreement.

I’m not sure that Evangelicals organize based on theology although it seems that way from the outside. People are looking for a religious experience and they will often ignore theology in order to have that experience. Many of us would like to have some consistency between the sought experience and theology but I think that the motivation to look at religion comes from the need to have that religious experience. Although theology may help one be more open to a religious experience I think for the most part theology comes “after” the experience as an attempt to understand what is “known” via experience.

I have suggested looking at what comes “before” theology in an attempt to organize liberals/progressives. I have suggested that “religious knowing” is more important than what one thinks they know. In fact the liberal history supports this---we have stressed how one knows more than what is known. We have suggested that a “liberal education” is all about how one learns to know anything. I think that the same applies to religion.

It is more of a process than a product. It is not the same process as a “liberal education” that seems to stress the process of rationality to the exclusion of “religious knowing” but my point is that the process is what leads to and makes important any resulting “product”. So in this Church that I envision the process of “religious knowing” would lead to what decisions are made about worship, education, etc.

Although many liberals/progressives may want to limit the knowing process to rationalism there are many who recognize that much is “known” that can not be put into words/concepts. This “religious knowing” does not contradict what we can know rationally but it is more based upon awe/wonder/etc which seems to me to come from a process that is “prior to” rational reflection. I suspect that most of us will want to “check out” those experiences with our rational thinking process so that we do not end up like the Native Americans who thought that their religion could save them from the White Man’s bullets.

The process of “doing theology” is more important than what theology you end up with. The fundamentalist has a way of “doing theology” that is repugnant to a liberal. This is what really divides us. The Episcopal church shows this division not based upon sex but based upon how theology is done. It seems to me that we need to form a new denomination based upon this evident division of “how one knows” not based upon specific theological positions.

Central to organization is the process of inclusion/exclusion. Before I left for the wilderness we had some discussion which confirmed that the worst thing that a liberal could do was to be a gatekeeper. Yet I continue to think that gatekeeping is a natural and necessary process. We need to be honest and open about the fences that we want and create. Those that think they do not have fences will not create any organization and paradoxically will end up speaking only for themselves. When we refuse to think about fences and organizing groups we end up being only individuals who may or may not meet occasionally.

The fences create the ability to have a place which is larger than any one individual. Liberals are wary of fences because so often organizations fall in love with their fences. Certainly a fence can be used in an abusive way (i.e. damning to hell those outside the fence). However, potential abuse is not reason enough to avoid the fencing and gatekeeping process.

What I am suggesting is that on the one hand religion is all about what can not be fenced with words/concepts/theology but on the other hand religion works better in groups than when it is limited to individual egos. Groups need fences. We may preach that “in the end” our fences do not matter and we are in fact Universalists (despite my hating Rapture Theology and the like I continue to believe in Universalism). In this way we do not fall in love with the fences. However, fences are needed to create a safe place for even Universalism to happen since those that are not open to Universalism can quickly destroy the group that is attempting to come together.

Before we can create a Progressive Christian Church we need to think about who will be included and who will be excluded. I want to start with those that can see the potential of building programs based upon lifting up “religious knowing” more than what is known (while at the same time not ignoring our rational minds and becoming victims to persons and concepts that lead away from rationality). Both Evangelicals and Progressives hunger for that religious experience. In that way we are not divided. I think we need to start a new denomination based upon where we are divided at the most basic level of how we know what we think we know.

That is where I would start. There are other “starting places” for Progressives. There may be some out there that think that theology can bring people together. There seem to be more Progressives that see ethical action as the way to bring people together. There can be groups for several alternatives. There is no reason to think that Progressive Christianity will be limited to one form. It now takes many forms and there is no reason that it can not take on many more forms including more than one denomination. But first we have to get over the fear of organizing. We need to think about fences that are effective at bringing us together and signs that point the way without falling in love with the fences and signs.

I loved the recent reference to “market share” and doing Church in response to unmet needs. There is a large group of people who are either members of the Church Alumni Association like me or who are in fact potential Progressive Christians who can not go the Church just because the UCC “accepts everyone”. I continue to hope that we can learn to talk about polity because the potential is there.

The yin yang symbol where the finite is in the infinite (in-finite). When the baby is in the mother is it separate or one? Sometimes they feel at one and sometimes they feel separate. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one.""

 

I feel Jesus came to us to lead us back to the right hand of the Father. We feel separate since we left the Garden, but we get glimpses of unity when we feel His Grace.

The Jesus Seminar and others would say that Jesus never said "I and the Father are one". I think that being separate is more than a feeling. But I think we have agreed to carry this discussion on within the Debate area and so those that are interested should look there.

Thank you for these thoughts. I would not totally equate being a “part” of the whole as being “separate” from the whole. I think there is an element of being “separate” that explains more than just being a “part”. Being “separate” implies a qualitative difference in how well the “part” participates in the whole. The “qualitative” moves us from more separation to less separation (one can argue whether one ever truly loses that separation). Without separation the concept of quality becomes somewhat meaningless whereas I think quality helps point us towards the whole. Some experiences reveal to us more about the “whole” than others.

I appreciate the fact that science is moving towards a theory based upon unity. We may eventually understand how the cosmos arises from some basic “structure” however I can not imagine that this overcomes the line that separates the finite from the infinite. One can argue that all matter is energy and when matter “dies” it is just transferred energy. However this line of thinking ignores the basic separation that is shown in the death.

I have more hope for wisdom coming from mystics than I do from scientists. However, I am not convinced that a mystic does not to some extent ignore the separation evident in his/her life in order to experience the unity. This does not mean that the unity is not “real” but it raises the question as to whether a finite part can lose that finiteness and fully experience the infinite. If the finite is not lost then I think you have to conclude that separation continues. If separation continues then you have the issue of quality which leads to the importance of choices such as the choice between fundamentalist Christianity and progressive Christianity.

Well this has all been interesting. I think I should go back to “New Denomination” where I belong. Please feel free to provide “negative” feedback there if you do not agree (can I give you permission to break the rules of “supportive” comments?)

I actually had intended to be a “single issue” contributor (see “New Denomination”) however I have appreciated Soma’s contribution to that discussion and I am confused by this post from Soma. I decided to ask for clarification (by the way, I notice the “rules” for this part of the message board and I am wondering how much “debate” is supposed to take place in this section. These rules may explain the lack of negativity in “New Denomination”. Anyway, forgive me if this is too much “debate”).

I want to “piggy back” my response to Soma with something I found from FredP:

FredP

Oct 20 2005, 06:20 PM Post #7

Group: Validating

Posts: 710

Joined: 22-March 05

Member No.: 322

BroRog:

I was inspired by your typology, so I thought I'd take a crack at summarizing my own ideas under those same headings. I grouped a few together, and probably left a couple out, but it's a decent start.

=====

Nutshell Description

Christianity is a matrix of images, ideas, and practices; perceived and constructed by the human intellect and imagination; from within the limitations of specific historical, cultural, and personal horizons; under the inspiration and illumination of God. Emphasis on the deep understanding of the conditions of existence (personal, social, and cosmic); on the transformation of these modes of existence in accordance with the concerns of harmony and justice; and on the liberation of the Divine element within all things. Boundaries and definitions are essential, but never final, as God is infinite, and we are not.

God

God is ineffable, inexhaustible, thoroughly beyond all forms and concepts. God is perfect unity, “One without a Second.” It is, however, a unity which also contains within itself inexhaustible dynamism and relationship. In perfect freedom and power, it pleased God to manifest this dynamic relationship by way of an “emptying out” into the form of the Cosmos: the supreme act of self-limitation and self-sacrifice, simultaneously generating both the painful condition of separation, and the seed of reconciliation necessary to overcome it.

Jesus/Bible

Jesus is that seed of reconciliation. There is little doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, and that he turned the first century social and spiritual world upside-down; but the story of Jesus is foremost a spiritual allegory. Far from being an exaggeration of the “facts,” this “greatest story ever told” weaves epic themes into mundane biographical details in an entirely novel way, to create a prism through which the entire Cosmos can be seen. In Jesus, we see the soul’s battle with darkness, and its journey into God. In Jesus, we see all the world’s claims to power challenged, and a new life of justice promised. In Jesus, we see the very universe shaken to its core, and lit on fire with the Spirit of Truth.

Salvation/Heaven/Eschatology

Salvation is nothing less than the transformation and liberation of the Cosmos, already accomplished in the act of creation itself, and perceived in the mysterious and awful image of the Cross. While personal and social wholeness on Earth, and the joy of union with God in eternity, are certainly to be welcomed, they are simply the fruit of this great work in which God bids us participate.

Sin/Hell

If salvation is the transformation and liberation of the Cosmos, then sin is willfully persisting in the condition of ignorance and separation once one has seen the truth. Having the same metaphysical scope as salvation, it is a spiritual neurosis that takes personal, social, and cosmic forms.

Cross

The cross is the juxtaposition of opposites: the symbol of the condition of our existence. It is the state of separation, and paradoxically, the only way out of it. It is the “victory” of self-sacrifice: a snare for the evil one. In the horizontal dimension, it is a restoration of the balance of power. In the vertical dimension, it breaks the cycle of vengeance, bringing healing and forgiveness. The depth of this magical image has probably barely begun to be comprehended.

Humans

Humanity is a peculiar Divine self-expression indeed, capable of monumental greatness, matched only by his colossal wretchedness. We have borne the great burden of being close enough to see the light, but not quite close enough to touch it. We are charged with the task of crossing the threshold. We’ve seen the Cross. We saw it in the Garden, and shirked away, and the world will never be the same.

FredP

Oct 20 2005, 06:20 PM

I hope the FredP does not mind but I find this to be as close to what I would say as I have ever heard. So it would be “my theology” in my proposed Church that would not be dependent upon theology.

I see a major difference between this theology and Soma’s suggestion that “It all be true”. The main difference is the presence of sin/separation. I would suggest that the fundamentalists are in fact more “separated” from what they are talking about than Tillich and others that suggest a much different theology. I would suggest that the Islamic fundamentalists are more “separated” than those who believe that Islam does not lead down that road. I find it very important that "Progressive Christianity" be very public about the differences based upon "both can not be true".

Having said this I am a Universalist that would agree that “in the end” all can be and will be “one” (“the end” being more ontological than teleological). I also would agree that the mystic has much to tell us about “becoming one with the one/all”. However, I agree with Tillich that we can not and do not “live” in either of these states of “oneness” within our cultural self. As FredP says we are close enough to see the light without becoming the light. Therefore I would suggest that we need a theology that talks as much about separation as it does about union.

If need be we can transfer this discussion to the Debate forum (and even transfer the “New Denomination” discussion there also). But somehow I think this is a discussion among friends so I would appreciate Soma’s response (and others also).

And I thought this conversation was over…..welcome back from vacation Mystical Seeker. I have really appreciated your contributions. I am thinking that any group that Mystical Seeker would join would be a group that I could love. Both of us seem to be caught between the likes of the UCC and UU.

The UU in me also is attracted to rationalism which is grounded in logic, reason and appreciates the fruits of science. That includes the work of the Jesus Seminar which has so brilliantly shown us how the historical Jesus can, in part, be seen differently from the early Church. There are rational methods here and the fruits of this work have given us the ability to have this conversation about a new denomination. However the Jesus Seminar is really struggling with what difference their work makes for the Church. It seems to me that being rational is necessary but not sufficient (showing us a historical Jesus does not “rationally” lead us to how to do Church any more than knowing the rules of music leads to great music).

The UCC in me responds to Borg as quoted by Mystical Seeker. The rational person may also tend to be “literal” and may not appreciate the metaphor/symbol. Mystical Seeker shows us that this is not necessary, but my favorite is Tillich. In “The Courage to Be”:

Being “grasped by the God beyond God” is not described in “rational” language. Yet it does not contradict the rational. This “points to” what I would say is “religious knowing”.

Tillich provides the basis for my suggestion that we not come together based upon a common theology, but instead come together with an attempt to provide better opportunities to be “grasped by the God beyond God” knowing full well that this lives “without a church”. We need a church based upon “Absolute Faith” knowing that this does not lead to a church or even an agreement on theology. Having said this some options are clearly better than others. Make a choice between the religious right and Tillich to begin with. Then look at practical alternatives--some of which clearly “invite” the “God beyond God” and others which clearly are not receptive.

Although many UCC people would say “amen” there is nothing that I have found in the UCC that would make Tillich’s way a test for including and excluding. One such UCC church sums it up by saying “We believe the Kingdom of God exists wherever Christ is accepted”. This is a pitiful attempt to be all things to all people. We need to be clear that the Christ we are talking about is not anything close to the Christ of the religious right. The religious right has a Christ that can be named clearly, has the safety of a clear theology and is supported by a huge cult/church.

Mystical Seeker---can we go to the same Church? (I will go to the music services and you can go to some other services—our Church needs to be large enough to be inclusive but small enough to be effective).

Perhaps my interest in polity hides my desire for depth. But we have the interesting dilemma that I am sure Jesus faced. How do we react to the Kingdom of God? Apparently Jesus did not intend to start a new Temple. That may be because he thought the Temple could be transformed or it could be that he thought the Temple had nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. One thing seems clear to me and that is if we are going to start a new denomination we have to really be aware of what we are talking about. We are talking about “building mystery”. We are talking about organizing what can not be organized. We are talking about building a structure for that which can not be held within a structure.

What are the alternatives? We can continue to muddle along with the present form of the Church. I find that depressing. The current Episcopal discussion mirrors the split in most mainline denominations not based upon sex but based upon theology and the religious knowing process. To continue to talk Christ when Christ is so divisive seems depressing to me.

We can give up on the attempt to think big. We can concentrate on our own spiritual journey and find support in serendipity ways and be organized only when it comes time to talk about the need for justice to act. This is the only viable alternative to me at the present time. It seems that our generation has lost the positive vision of polity that seems to have existed from Plato to Kennedy. Much has to do with post modernism but many have shown where that path ultimately leads. We need to start putting something back together.

I can live without “depth” on Sunday morning if Sunday morning brings the whole family back to church. That family includes those that do not do a lot of theological thinking but are “missing something”. That family includes children who learn first how to know before they begin knowing what they know. That family includes a diverse culture living in a culture that divides based upon language, income and other cultural factors but more importantly increasingly divides by lifting up diversity as more important than what we have in common. When the family is together we can point towards “depth”.

Without polity “depth” may further divide. I will go “deep” within my spiritual path and we can meet within message boards but we can not do Church together.

If we realize that we are “building mystery” then we know that we start with an impossible task. However, some ways are better than others. I do think that a common set of symbols is necessary. Jesus, the Christ and the Bible are powerful symbols with a lot of history. That is why I think a Church can do well when it is both Progressive and Christian. It is not the only "path" but a "path" must be chosen. When this all is recognized then we can start to “do Church” which really is just helping build a safe place for Grace to happen. If we refuse to help in the building will Grace not happen? I don’t think so but it will be increasingly difficult for us to “be together” when it does happen.

I guess I should start getting off my soapbox. This is either going to happen or it will not. I do not have anything to sell you. I can not offer you a website or some other place to go so you can get the "real" information. It seems like the Center for Progressive Christianity is a good place to talk about a new Progressive Christian Church. However I guess I am still where I started this conversation. I am still looking for those who want to work specifically on polity. I have no agenda at this time other than that. Perhaps there is a "group" out there that is already discussing this or wants to have this discussion that may or may not lead to something practical. I am ready to see if the practical is possible. Certainly I would welcome any more thoughts on polity in response to this conversation but I really am looking for those that are also willing to explore the practical. I understand you can send a message to me if you are a member. Please do that if you share this interest.

I was asked by Lily to start something regarding new churches.

 

I'm going to start by reposting what I said in another thread:

Now, on to more...

 

Theologically, I always start with the assumption that God is actually somehow at work in the world around me (go figure). Therefore, my primary task isn't to "bring God" to the outsiders, but rather to seek to discern where God is already at work in the midst of those around me and to help them to seek to plug in.

 

From a missional perspective, this has distinct significance. First, it means that when "evangelizing" we are not trying to get people into traditional churches with the expectation that they conform to the established worship image if they want to be real Christians. Liturgy (music, ritual, flow) should be derived from real life because God is really active in life. When liturgy speaks to and through living experience, it becomes meaningful and transformative. Hence, the need for "alternative," "experiemental," or "indigenous" worship services.

 

Obviously, traditional worship works well ("is meaningful") for those who attend. To remove standard liturgical elements and replace them with water-filled trash cans and sandpits in the name of "progress" or "change" would be truly de-valuing to them and their spirituality. Not good. Therefore, in order to "make room" for new worshipful expressions and to "respect" the established worshiping traditions in a congregation, it is important to create multiple services that can take a multitude of forms. Thus, the formal worship of the community becomes "de-centered."

 

While this general structure could theoretically work with existing church structures, realisitically it is a lot easier to just start new communities. Resistance to useful change in established congregations is tremendous! (If you don't believe me, try telling the established powers that be in a congregation that they will no longer be the center of attention and indeed that people may well be leaving their services for other options and see how they respond.) I often hear "we need new people" from churchgoers, but I don't know the extent to which they are willing to adapt in order to make that possible.

 

You may be wondering at this point, "But how does the worship service function as the central feature/act of the new approach to worshiping community?" The answer is simple: it doesn't. Yes, what I propose would be the end of formal worship as the key feature of the community. Rather, the key/central feature of the community is the intentionality behind building a relationally-connected community. Whereas a church would have let's say 5-7 worship services in a week, the "knock-down, drag out, church-wide chili cook off and jamboree" (etc) would become the primary activity uniting its members.

 

The result: a de-centered church that makes room for a variety of ways to engage one's spiritual life and to give expression to that reality, while at the same time having large events (say every other month) that reinforce a singular identity as belonging to "First Community Church of Whereever." Worship then ceases to be something we do on Sunday morning, but rather is something that we "do" that is inseparable from daily living, community building, and making a difference in this world.

 

By starting new churches, a major barrier in "redevelopment" is bypassed: a disconnected church culture. Because they are "new" and not connected with the "establishment" they don't have all the cultural baggage to wrestle with and they are protected from such influences (in part anyway). Moreover, denominations are able to inject new "information" and life into the system, which could grow to becoming significant and a catalyst to widespread change.

 

Believe it or not, that's the short version. I can only hope it is coherent since I have to go.

I like a lot of this and it is relevant to discussion now going on under "new denomination".

This is starting to feel like church…we had a sermon, a hymn and now Bible study.

Again I would like to think big. A large church can do what a small church can not. If we want to learn from those evangelical churches that are growing up around us we can look at a common formula that they use. They use the main Sunday service to attract people and fund the organization. In addition some use the TV to attract and fund. The formula is very organized but the idea is to bring people through the door and once they are there you find a filtering process that leads to where the “real” Church meets in much smaller groups. It is in these smaller groups that religious transformation usually takes place (not that many people are not “moved” some by the Sunday service). There is an “umbrella” group that sponsors these new church starts and they obviously help with the funding and organization. Much of the draw is to “meet needs” and then later talk about saving souls. They really think that they are doing good on Sunday by “meeting needs” as well as doing “true” Church during the week by saving souls.

Can we transfer this model to the Progressive Christian Church? It may go like this. The large Sunday service could be “centered” by the music. You could alternate Sundays by the type of music or mix the music in one service. The music has to be excellent in quality. Yes this is entertainment but at the same time you build into the service what it means to “religiously know”. You add some ritual, some silent contemplation practices and other languages designed to show what it means to “religiously know” but really, if truth be told, the congregant comes away being mostly entertained. However, while there the congregant sees the opportunity “to go deeper” within in small groups that meet throughout the week.

Here is an example of one such small group:

Mission Statement: To meet in small groups and share music that speaks to our souls.

Practice: Listen for and identify those songs and artists that speak to your soul and then have weekly get togethers for wine/cheese and share. Leadership would rotate as each person is given a chance to share an artist or a collage of music with a theme.

Method: Start the gathering with lighting a common candle that is passed from meeting to meeting. Repeat the same blessing each time which would bless the group and invite grace to happen. Then ask that people prepare themselves to listen to music. Do an exercise to quiet the mind, concentrate on breathing,etc. Then music is played. A few minutes of silence follows each piece. People can jot notes about what struck them. Someone may ask that one piece be repeated. Then share what is “religious” about the music. Share what metaphors are raised by the music and where those metaphors take you. If there is a story in the music try to see if you are a character in the story and see where that takes you. Play the next piece and repeat the process. Then share some wine and cheese (or home made bread and juice) (or if you are really sinful strawberry shortcake). Gather to close with a song that can be easily sung by all and has the potential for being your group’s theme song.

This would be an “entry” small group. Other groups would go “deeper” and pick up what people here have been talking within this message board about what leads to real religious transformation.

I think that some version of my idea with music can make you large so that you can organize and fund while at the same time making you small so you can be effective. The point is that throughout the Church program there has to be some Primary message that ties the group together both in large and small groups. My suggestion is the “Religious Knowing” is that common thread.

Well I am still thinking big. The corporate person in me sees a vast “unmet need” out there and a denomination can be seen as a corporation that is looking at a customer base. That customer base is much larger than my group that has been called the church alumni association. That customer base includes a lot of persons who are going to an evangelical church because, for the most part, those new evangelical churches do church better than we do. We can learn from them. The parent organization to a lot of those churches being planted around the country came up with a formula of how to start and grow new churches. It seems to me the key to that success is being organized and being well funded. But there also needs to be motivation to organize and to fund. I am wondering if the common denominator of “religious knowing” provides the same kind of motivation as wanting to “save my soul so I can go to heaven”.

I see potential in adding “entertainment” onto “religious knowing”. Both would involve music. Music draws a lot of people. A lot of musicians sing songs that are quite religious. McClaren told us in Portland that he knows that the purpose of the Church is not to “meet needs” but it is better than not meeting needs and not going to Church. I would say that the primary purpose of the Church is not entertainment but if entertainment also provides an audience for “religious knowing” I see no great evil. I like to listen to Prairie Home Companion. Garrison Keillor mixes religion and entertainment with the emphasis on entertainment. How about a mix where the emphasis is reversed? The key to starting a new group would be to have musicians. If you are doing home church a simple CD can do (I have used this succesfully).

This line of thinking could go in several directions but generally what about making music a primary motivation for organizing and funding?

Now following the sermon and our hymn we return to the subject at hand.....

The question is whether this "new denomination" idea "has legs". I have suggested that this not be based upon a common theology or common sense of ethics but instead based upon a rather loose definition of "religious knowing" that may be large enough to bring into the net a majority of persons that call themselves progressive Christians. Am I talking to the wrong audience here? Are people more satisfied with the status quo than the uneasiness of what a new denomination may look like? Is there any hope for us in exile?

I had some time. So I did some exploration of this message board. There are some incredibly gifted philosophers and theologians here. I pale in comparison. Perhaps that is one reason that I do not think that a common theology will hold us together. But I think it is more than that.

I was working full time when I went to seminary. I remember that my fellow students could not understand the corporate world and my fellow workers could not understand the seminary world. I remember one Christmas I returned to a UCC church that I loved when it had a progressive minister before he got booted. There I found the message that I was a horrible sinner that could only be saved by the blood. I left before the message was over and dropped by a local Unity church. There I was told that I was no less than God and again I left before the message was over. I can see why my fellow workers do not understand the “inside” of the Church and I can see why the “inside” of the Church does not relate to the working world.

It seems to me that the Church needs to preach less theology and be more of a place where grace is a safe place to happen. I do not think that grace happens when one is told he/she is worthless or when one is told that he/she is God in disguise. Really not much grace can happen when one is being told anything.

I think that grace happens when one hears that song sung from the point of view of a homeless person singing “you could be me” and suddenly one realizes that I am both the victim and the victimizer. I think grace happens when your soul finds a home even when you know that you will lose that feeling in the very next hour. I think grace happens when one feels a need for forgiveness and accepts forgiveness from an unexpected source. I think grace happens when one finds a place to burst with thankfulness for no particular reason.

The Church can be that place but too often theology gets in the way. We need the language of music. If I knew how to do it I would offer you a song….. amazing grace how sweet the sound…

I think scientific knowledge is important because it seeks the truth and can quiet the intellect by answering questions, but at the same time I think mystical knowing is a higher knowledge that is stronger than belief. Mysticial knowledge is the experience of God inside and everywhere, but the communion starts within where as belief starts with believing what another tells you from outside about God.

 

Different personalities commune with this Mystic God in different ways, service, song, contemplation, philosophy or even physical exertion. All good paths to the zone. Different ways to express this experience is necessary for the different personal histories one has to relate to. I think all are valid explanations as long as all are respected and accepted as trying to explain the one truth. One who has mystical knowledge I think would be comfortible with this tolerance.

 

If a pathway to the zone is experienced the church will grow from private quarters to a bigger one. If a person has contact he or she may be able to inspiror many from the top down so bottom up or top down could work.

I REALLY like this. Thank you.

Perhaps it would be good to flesh out what is meant by "religious knowing". The sense of awe and wonder, and the mystical experience of God, are what I think of when you describe this. This is the experiential aspect to religion, as opposed to the theological aspect. How much should theology figure into this at all? Or should we only focus on the experiential to the exclusion of the theological?

If you participate in a worship service that reflects the power of the metaphor then I do not think you want to preach too much based upon what the metaphor should "rationally"mean. If you are doing some form of communion I think it is important to be explicit in the process as to whether this act is meant to be something that is understood as metaphor or not. How you lift up the metaphor in preparation for communion will have theological understanding but I do not think doing communion in this way will result in a common theology. Certain theologies will not work with "religious knowing" via the power of symbol/the metaphor. Those theologies that are open to the power of symbol/the metaphor can coexist within a denomination. So to some extent theology is important in that way but I do not think that a common theology is necessary for a denomination.

Some thoughts on what David said.I would like a "new" church, though I am at times quite happy with UCC (and other times less so). Anyway, David said:

> The United Church of Christ is not really united because "Christ" is either some version of the vision of evangelicals or some version of the vision of the "liberal" scholarship; "Christ" can not be both. The fact that most churches hide this division or at best cloud the difference is what has made a lot of people mad (why did my minister not tell us about this?). This clouding of the difference can be seen in Borg who on the one hand is so clear about his vision of Jesus but so unclear about what difference that makes to the life of the Church.

 

I don't think the name was ever meant to be so grandeous. It was the "uniting" of several churches-- Congregational (at least across the Mississippi), Brethren of Christ, etc. and coalition with several others: Disciples of Christ, Metroplitan Church, etc. into one organization. Though the church has very little upper organization (the synod meets every 2 or 3 years) and each church is separate and isn't bound by the Synod. The fact that all UCCs are not the same is based on organizational structure which makes each church it's own. (I have heard of almost evangelical UCCs as well as very radical progressive ones, though most of them tend towards the liberal.) If there was a "higher authority" to rein in individual churches they would be more similar, but UCC takes on the congregational roots and each is self-governed and controlled.

It also means that in any UCC you will see a range of beliefs from more traditional to probably identical to Unitarian. For ex. I consider the "trinity" more of an metaphor. I'm actually pretty comfortable with a democratic, self-run church, even if another structure might make it more unified in theology. I would not be comfortable in any church without doctrinal freedom, even if the "imposed" doctrine was more to my liking.

--des

Thank you for this input. I do not think that "top down" necessarily means the loss of the freedom that you talk about. I would ask whether within your own congregation you can see a split between the two Christs that I described. If so, does this limit the ability of your group to represent to the larger community who you are and what you are about? If you do not have such a conflict then more power to you!!! (I suspect that many more do have such a conflict than those that do not).

It seems to me that religious knowing and empirical or scientific knowledge should complement rather than contradict one another--I think you said this at an earlier point when you commented on people checking their brains at the church door--and to me this needs to be important in developing a basis for a new denomination. By that, I mean to say that science teaches us that the universe is very old, that humans evolved on this planet, and so forth; any religious way of knowing needs to accept this. In fact, it seems to me that one reason for the necessity of a new paradigm in religious thought is that the old paradigm wasn't really consistent with a rational understanding of the world. We live in an ordered world that conforms to certain physical laws. For the last few centuries, religion has had to cope with this understanding of the world, that differed from the way ancient people saw things. All sorts of "isms" cropped up in religious thought, from deism to fundamentalism, as ways of coping with this newer understanding.

 

I chewing over your comments concerning naming being outside of the religious way of knowing. From my point of view, we come up with names as metaphors for a divine reality that we cannot understand fully or completely, at least not in what you would call the other way of knowing. I think of the world's religions as representing a process by which various people came up with ways of "naming" God that seemed appropriate for their time and culture. This is sort of the "blind man and the elephant" phenomenon, except that I think that later cultures and religious communities can build on what the earlier ones developed. So, to me, revelation is continuous, and ways of knowing should not be individual and always building from scratch; rather each successive individual and community is part of a great historical process of trying to understand the Divine. We read Spong or Tillich because we are interested in characterizing, discussing, and applying our human reason to that other way of religious knowing. It sounds like you are saying that we should never put a name on it. I am inclined to see names as okay as long as we understand that the names are inadequate and incomplete. The problem I see with so much of religion, especially creedal or doctrinaire varieties, is that it comes up with the names and then assigns a dogma to them, rather than recognizing their metaphorical and approximate nature. Maybe we are talking about the same thing. I am not sure.

Thank you for your continued conversation. I understand that when someone suggests that there is a common denominator one had better understand what is being suggested.

Yes I do appreciate the wonderful and really unbelievable results that have come to us as a result of science and that way of knowing. Nothing should be done to stop this or discount the importance of this way of knowing. I would suggest that anything that seems to fall in the realm of the scientific be left to science (for instance evolution). I think that much of what has been called religion was just an attempt to do science and should properly be rejected when science shows that it is bunk. Yet I do not think we will understand awe/wonder/mystery via the scientific method. It is really a different way of knowing. I would suggest that the scientist is looking for the "ah hah" experience and the person looking for religious knowing is looking for the "awe" experience. It is possible that both are experienced at the same time in some circumstances and so in that sense they "complement" each other. I would suggest however that to "know religiously" is to know via the symbol or the metaphor where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts whereas science has no method to deal with that "greater" factor.

There also is a desire for the scientist to split the subject from the object and try not to affect the objective by the subjective. We are finding that this really is not possible in looking at the really big scientific questions but nevertheless it can be noted that "religious knowing" may blur the seeming subjective/objective split. When one is struck by awe/mystery/wonder there is a tendency for the ego to take a back seat. Our language seems to require a subject and an object but when one is struck by awe/mystery/wonder one "knows" without the need for the language which requires a subject/object and thus "naming" does diminish what is known.

This requires a lot more exploration and perhaps someone else can start a new topic that covers what is meant by "religious knowing". I would like to continue to think about what difference it makes if we believe Borg that the Kingdom of God is not a result of "conventional wisdom". If there is "religious knowing" how are we going to do Church differently?

Would someone be willing to define "religious knowing" (as is being used in this post) for me? As a Gnostic, my brain defaults to Gnosis (that wonderful direct mystical intuitive knowledge of the ineffable "God" ) everytime such a phrase is written. I just might be in agreement with all this, but seem to be missing that common definition.

 

Thanks.

I like "wonderful, direct, mystical, intuitive" as opposed to knowledge gained by analysis, breaking into parts, nominalism, and most importantly fundamentalism/literalism. I have not studied enough about Gnosis but I think it important to note that the appreciation of awe/wonder/mystery are very common and come quite easily to humans. Therefore I suspect that there is something biological about the process. In that sense the "material body" is important (perhaps one can say necessary but not sufficient). I would not totally separate the "knowing of the body" from the "knowing of the mind". I think there is a tendency to associate the knowlege of the material world with the scientific method and this should be questioned---it seems that the material world can be known "directly, mystically and intuitively". There certainly is truth to saying that the REAL is "beyond" the material world because we are talking about the infinite in relation to the finite. However, one can also argue that the infinite can not be understood without some contact with the finite. I like Tillich when he talks about this dynamic.

All of this is getting into philosophy and theology that will perhaps lead to unnecessary disagreement.

I am not sure whether this discussion is helpful but I trust that the reader knows that I think the real split is between those that need to name the Christ and those that see the power of metaphor. I think that there is a natural epistemological split here that is bigger than any justice issue or theological discussion. If we can separate on that split we can then talk about "unity within diversity" (in this case how much of "religious knowing" can be called Gnosis).

Sounds great to me. So how does this new church get built?

And that is the question that started this conversation (by the way I appreciate your contribution to this). I would much prefer that someone else answer this question and I could just join in the process. I have been looking for leadership in this process, but so far I have not found it. I think the process will happen since there is such a natural split in the mainline denominations, not based upon sexual questions that make the headlines, but based upon what the Jesus Seminar and others have brought out of the closet: The United Church of Christ is not really united because "Christ" is either some version of the vision of evangelicals or some version of the vision of the "liberal" scholarship; "Christ" can not be both. The fact that most churches hide this division or at best cloud the difference is what has made a lot of people mad (why did my minister not tell us about this?). This clouding of the difference can be seen in Borg who on the one hand is so clear about his vision of Jesus but so unclear about what difference that makes to the life of the Church.

I would recommend to all "The Fourth R" that is put out by Westar/The Jesus Seminar. In the May/June 2006 edition one of my favorite people, Hal Taussig, describes his recent book "A New Spiritual Home" which reflects his research directed towards the emerging Progressive Christianity movement. He has found "literally thousands" of communities that reflect the difference that Progressive Christianity is making across a wide range of denominational lines. My reading of Taussig indicates that this movement will emerge organically from these groups "from the grassroots" into a form that is not yet recognized. He suggests that the next step may be "some new regional and national conversations among progressive churches so that they may emerge more clearly as the elequent new national Christian voice that they are". He also suspects

that "denominational Christianity has--for better or worse--outlived its usefulness and attraction for most Americans".

Although I agree with Taussig that the major denominations seem to be on a death march I am not pursuaded that a movement from "the grassroots up" is the only direction. Taussig's research seems to indicate to me just the tip of an iceberg that is in fact being kept underwater by organizational problems.

For instance, I am familiar with a local Episcopal community that is a member of The Center for Progressive Christianity" and reflects some of the energy that Taussig talks about. However, they are limited by the Bishop and that Bishop's Bishop and that Bishop's Bishop. I would like to imagine what a group of people like this could do without those limitations. Yet I would not wish that they become UU without a compass.

It seems to me that organizations exist in response to the kind of "grassroots" interest that Taussig finds. Although there are many exciting things happening now I do not see the organizational response that could in fact further that "elequent new national Christian voice". And this explains the nature of my quest.

And so how would a "top down" process look? I really don't know. There are the simple answers that an organization needs to be created. A non-profit organization needs to have a board. That organization should probably start with a presence on the internet and perhaps go to other tech alternatives such as podcasts (is that the correct term?), develop resources, communicate about alternatives, etc, etc, etc.

However, the difficult part of a "top down" process which makes everyone uneasy is how one includes and how one excludes. Post-moderns attempt to pursuade us that this is an artificial process and the only "true" process is that organic approach where persons meet and form common interest societies and if those grow they grow organically based upon individuals that have no REAL connection that holds them together such as a Ground of Being or any such old fashioned concept. It may be that these persons may tend to be excluded by a "top down" process not because we can not learn much from post modern deconstruction but that because a "top down" process may be dependent upon a REAL connection such as that Ground of Being.

I have stated that I do not think that a common theology or a common sense of ethics can hold us together (note that much of the Progressive Christian movement defaults to the justice issue because that seems like the "common interest society" that may hold us together). I have to admit that the alternative of a common denominator of "religious knowing" has theological implications not the least of which is that there is a Tao, there is a Ground of Being, there is a Reality that we experience. However, the essence of "religious knowing" is that this can not be named. If we name it we lose it. At the same time we say it can not be named we have to say that we know it based upon some different way of knowing than the naming process that is so fundamental to the other way of knowing. If we can have this as a common denominator and then find ways of being together that explicitly point out this process of knowing then there will be that natural split in the United Church of Christ between those that think that the Christ can and has to be named and those that see the power of the metaphor. We need to be honest about that including and excluding.

I see a lot of potential in the TCPC eight points (another attempt to include/exclude) but I think that we need to include/exclude based upon what I am talking about.

Well this is the longer version of my original post. I am still looking for persons who are interested in a "top down" process but I would welcome comments from others.

I agree totally that there has to be a common vision or structure. A danger I see of trying to bring people together just based on a common theology alone, besides the fact that it would be hard to get 100% agreement on everything, is how would this be defined or enforced? If you start trying to enforce some kind of new creed on people and you become in a sense the very kind of doctrinaire religion that you rejected in the old paradigm.

 

There does have to be a commonality. I think that a service with several parts, or different services with different forms or worship, or different interest groups who might be interested in pursuing alternative forms of worship, are all conceivable. Of course, I am just fantasizing here, imagining a denomination big enough to accomodate these kinds of diversity.

 

Quaker worship, which I love for its contemplative group mysticism, is quiet and reverential. Yet other forms of worship, including some kinds of music, can be celebratory and loud and vigorous and joyful. Both are just different ways of mediating God. Is it possible to accomodate such diversity under the same religious roof, and is it possible to give people that diversity while still accomodating some kind of commonality of purpose or a common "religous knowing" process?

YES. Start to imagine what a common vision of "religious knowing" would mean and how that would require that we do church differently. That does not mean that we throw away what we "know" based upon the more accepted way of knowing. However, that way of knowing is limited and has limited our ability to do church. I think one reason the evangelicals are so successful is that people are so hungry for "religious knowing" that they will check their brain at the door to the worship service. We need to find a way to appreciate both ways of knowing, build a church on this basis and evangelize.

I have drawn a lot of inspiration from Borg and Spong, but, like you, I feel like they have refused to take their views to what I think are their logical conclusion. Their theological ideas are great, but their attachment to traditional Christian churches that use traditional language and traditional creeds just doesn't work for me at all. They want to merge new theological paradigms with modes of expressing them worshipfully that emerged out of the old paradigms. As Jesus said, you can't put new wine into old wineskins.

 

I notice that Matthew Fox, in his latest book, has called for a complete rupture between the old and the new Christianities, but I wonder what he means by this. Last I heard, he was an Episcopalian like Borg and Spong. Borg never calls for that kind of rupture in any case. He seems to talk a lot in his books about bridging the gaps between the followers of the old paradigm and the followers of the new, which I think makes no sense.

Exactly! This is what I can't undestand. It is one thing to understand that biblical narratives are metaphorical; it is another thing altogether to recite creeds, which are meant to be literal affirmations of belief and which serve by definition as litmus tests of belief, which one doesn't believe to be literally true! This is one part of Borg's theology that I just can't accept.

It's funny, but the musical part of services never did anything for me in worship, which is probably why I was attracted for a period of time to Quaker silent worship. But I would surmise that not everyone is pleased by the same thing. So, that being said, one thing that I would bring out of my Quaker background would not necessarily be the silence (although I think that silence and mystical worship can be part of worship) but the participatory nature of it, where every person can be a minister and where every person can plan or contribute their ideas to the service. My conception of worship services is really, really vague, except that I have this idea that maybe it could somehow be radically democratic, where people can create their worship services as they see fit, where diverse forms of celebrating God and diverse contributions can make up the worship process. What exactly that means in practice, I'm not sure.

My background is actually as a "convinced" Quaker (a person who was not born a Quaker but who became one.) I do find unprogrammed meetings to be an interesting and sometimes mystical experience. I do think that the mystical or meditative element of Quaker worship has been a positive experience for me, and I like the simplicity of worship and the lack of reliance on creeds or formal rites. But it has a somewhat insular culture, and it has its own internal divisions and disputes about how traditionally Christian its theology should be. Somehow, at some point, I felt a need to look beyond the Quaker horizons, although I think that some aspects of its methods of worship and its culture and values are things I would like to hold on to.

Music is an effective language. So is silence/contemplation. So is ritual that invites the power of the metaphor instead of suggesting that beliefs are closed. A service may have several parts or you may have different forms of worship. My experience with UU however suggests that "radical democracy" has to exist with some form of common vision/structure so that we can be evangelical in the best sense of the word. I am not convinced that we can come together based upon a common theology or even a common sense of ethics. But I do think that there is a common "religious knowing" process that is shown by the languages of music, silence, ritual, etc.

Thank you for responding.

I too have been caught between the UCC and UU and I too am frustrated with Borg and Spong. Borg has repeatedly said that he has no problem with the Nicene Creed. I just got back from Portland OR where he was to speak on "The Future Church" but gave us nothing more than a New Vision of Jesus/God. His wife's Church reflects nothing new on Sunday. I have watched Spong write about how Christianity must change or die and then suggest that he is impressed that the priests in many churches now face the congregation rather than the alter (not the kind of changes I have in mind). Don't get me wrong-I love Borg and Spong--I just don't think they are prepared to talk about what the future church may look like.

Generally I think there has to be some continuity between the results of what Borg and Spong have shown us and how we do church. For instance, it is well accepted that the Bible is true not based on history but based upon the truth of the metaphor (don't climb the sign post that points towards the road). Yet we sit in pews and listen to three point logical sermons and say creeds that do not sound at all metaphorical. The langauge that we need to speak is musical. The "liberal" seminary does not teach its students how to do church via the musical language (yes music needs logical rules but this does not necessarily lead to great music). I was impressed in Portland with Brian McLaren who is an evangelical that is willing to talk to progressives. His presentation reflected the power of the metaphor. It is interesting to note that McLaren is not seminary trained. We can learn a lot from people like him about how to do church even though I can not support his theology.

Listen to Michael Durall who writes about his vision of the UU Church of the future:

"These churches will have no steeples. no organs, no pews, and no stained glass windows. They are likely to be warehoused in low-rent industrial districts...These places will be noisy and boisterous, full of excitement and energy. Worship will be highly participatory...People will be close together, sing loudly and have their arms around one another's shoulders. The music--jaza, blues, rock and roll and rap will be live, preformed by professional musicians. The lighting will be colorful and dramatic. These services will go on for two hours or more, after which people will stay and share a meal together, a gourmet fare prepared by a first rate caterer. Potluck is a relic of the past...Worship will be conducted to two to three languages, alternating from one to another, with the text of hymns and prayer projected onto large screens, so that all can particpate so to some extent...These churches will attract interracial couples, both straight and gay, bringing the mix we have never been able to achieve before".

It seems to me that the new Progressive Christian Church will be staffed by professional musicians who may be more important than trained seminarians (yes I am one of those). I wonder if anyone else that is interested in Progressive Christianity may wonder what The Progressive Christian Chuch may look like?

P.S. Now I look back on this post and see how unmusical it is. Oh well, to recognize the problem......