David

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 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 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. 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).

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?

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).

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.

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.

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......

As my first post let me think big. I am ready to think about a new denomination. I am not satisfied with waiting on the current denominations to go through possible splits and possible transformations. Nor am I satisfied with individual/local emerging groups that speak to local concerns. This suggestion is obviously not directed to those who are to some degree satisfied with their church alternatives or who see potential in working on anything less than a new denomination. However, I am wondering if anyone knows of others that are thinking big. If so please direct me to those persons. David