Jump to content

Ecumentalism


soma

Recommended Posts

Not one where anyone would be punished forever...
How long would your god punish someone?
Life has happened. Over the course of the last 38 years I have lived life and, to quote Paul, When I was a child I thought like a child but when I became an adult I learned to think like an adult. Sorry for being so ambiguous but it is hard to be any more specific than that.
If you'd rather not talk about it here, I understand. No more needs to be said. It's good to see you quoting the Apostle Paul.
It is a different kind of effort.
I see; I'm putting in a lot of effortless effort?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I said earlier: I do not think that the ecumenical movement has to include DavidK and we need to exclude those that exclude. However, more problematic is what do we do with the “inclusivists”, those liberals/progressives that have the tendency that I had in wanting to include DavidK. I am thinking that ecumenism demands that we embrace pluralism and that may mean some challenges dealing with “inclusivists”.

 

I keep making the same point. DavidK keeps posting. He is lately the most active poster on this message board. Some have decided to exclude those who exclude. Others keep talking to DavidK. Some have evidently decided to stop talking at all. So far there is only one active DavidK. I do fear that the urge to include will draw others. Maybe the message board could survive, but I do not think the ecumenical movement survives the mix.

 

This message board is not the ecumenical movement but you can see the difficulty of attempting to include in the ecumenical movement those who exclude. The "inclusivists" will continue attempting to bridge a divide that can not be bridged. I have seen some Churches attempt to deal with this by creating a “discussion group” kind of separate from the main mission of the Church in hopes that the consequences of the divide could be diffused—sort of like this message board does with the Debate versus Progressive sections. But that does not work.

 

I continue to watch with interest how people deal with DavidK who is not going away as long as he feels included. So you are sitting around the ecumenical table with DavidK and attempting to plan the next project. What are you going to be able to do? Is it worth it to include all of those groups that exclude around that ecumenical table in hopes that one or two groups contain “closet progressives” trying to get out? Does that not result in a stalemate? For DavidK stalemate is the goal as long as he “reaches” someone reading this message board. For DavidK’s Church stalemate of the ecumenical movement is the goal. Why give them that goal?

 

I think DavidK said somewhere that we use the same words but with entirely different meanings. I have suggested that this is because we do not share the same epistemology. It is not so much a matter of disagreeing with “what you know”, it is a basic disagreement in “how you know”. Diana Eck has made the same point and I have noted that earlier.

 

I have also noted earlier that it is not helpful to quote the Bible to someone who sees the Bible as DavidK does when you do not share the same epistemology. Has this ever worked for anyone? Why do it here? Why do it within the ecumenical movement?

 

Sorry to keep making the same point.

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David your points are valid. People listen, but very few hear the message. I still feel that we need to include all, but to address your points I would suggest placing people in categories or levels of understanding. The tadpoles need to be in the pond until they develop legs and lungs. Yes, the spiritual elders would make the decisions and spiritual children will have to be seen and not heard until they have developed the understanding that is needed to discuss at the proper level.

 

Many men and women have reached middle age without achieving mental maturity; therefore, it is necessary to assist them through the neglected layers of the mind. If people have not developed and completed the first two layers, they won't discover the third layer of the mind, which works in a hidden way to create something meaningful in our lives. The process of becoming an individual should be given priority for this reason because following the inner meaning of life is more important to an individual than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soma,

 

I have always appreciated your posts. But many times they do not address how we take theology/philosophy to a “practical” level which is mostly always my concern. This last post does and I thank you for that.

 

I wanted to respond before DavidK comes back and refuses to be a tadpole because I think your idea, if I understand it, has merit. I thought of you when I started to read about Ken Wilbur’s “Integral Spirituality”. Wilbur’s point is that there are “stages of development” and each stage represents a level of organization or a level of complexity. Wilbur makes the statement that I think you made elsewhere that with his “theory of everything” he sees “all views are correct” in the general sense that every level has its own important truths that not only disclose that level, but also act as important and necessary ingredients of the higher levels. Wilbur argues that there is a hierarchy as one “moves up”. “Moving up” involves a dissonance with the level one is on and a willingness to let go or “dieing to” the present level. (I should say that Wilbur’s use of the “death” image is not entirely descriptive because he wants to say that “moving up” may involve differentiation, integration, transcending or including the “lower” level). Wilbur says that “a rational scientist who despises every variety of mythology because it is a lower level is simply someone out of touch with his or her roots”.

 

My “practical” response to Wilbur and perhaps to you is that this “what makes sense” seems inherently tied to the level that you are involved with. In other words the “faith of a child” makes sense from the viewpoint of a child. We can argue that some never get to the next level and so nothing beyond the “faith of a child” makes sense. You can see that many liberals/progressives make this claim about fundamentalism. Wilbur would suggest here that even within the same "level" there are "better" choices than others so that the "faith of a child" has better choices than fundamentalism.

 

But for me the practical question is what we do with this understanding in the ecumenical world.

 

One response is not to talk negatively about levels that may seem “lower” than the one you are “on” not because it is not “respectful”, but because that level is really still a part of you. This is where I think you have a valid point (if I am understanding you with the help of Wilbur). There is much about the “faith of a child” that still speaks to me because it still is not only a part of me, but it gives added dimension to my present spiritual path.

 

However, I still have “practical” questions.

 

The practical issue for the “spiritual elders” is how to relate to those who think they are not only as much of an “elder” as you, but even more of an “elder” than you (like my teenagers acted). Plato would argue that we need “philosopher kings” and I would not disagree. However, by default the system that “works best” is democracy. However, democracy only can work if we do not let children vote. There is a parallel I think in the ecumenical movement which I would suggest is pluralism. Pluralism suggests to me that some immature persons will never make it to the ecumenical table. In other words those persons who are not mature enough to recognize the maturity in other people will not be invited to the table. Like at Thanksgiving, there will be a “children’s table”. That will be an important table because we all set there at one time and we can enjoy being in the same room with that table, but it will not be the table where we will want to set.

 

Also, at the ecumenical table there will not be a place setting for the “highest” spiritual elder and “lower” spiritual elders. Each will recognize that there is hierarchy, but that hierarchy can not be the basis for ecumenical work. We each will return to our own spiritual communities where that hierarchy maybe more recognizable and we will be more comfortable talking about “levels”. So for me the ecumenical world really is involved only with the difference between the children’s table and the adult’s table. In our own spiritual communities we can talk more about what Wilbur is talking about.

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading David's post I could not but help to think of those words - The poor will always be with you. I recognise those words as I'm pretty poor myself.

If this is not a Zen koan meant for my enlightenment then it must be related somehow to my post. Give me a hint. Just say it’s like one hand clapping and I’ll know what you mean. Maybe the poverty of my ability to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David I like what you wrote. From time to time I think I need to sit at the Children's table for different reasons. Maybe it is to show unity?

Maybe.....

I would just say I would sit at that table and listen to that part of me that still has the faith of a child.

Point is however that you may be able to sit at the children's table, but the invitation to the other table is based upon maturity.

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a wonderful discussion. I agree that it would be wonderful to find a community of like-minded people. That has been the primary value of this site (mostly a few years ago when it was very active) to me. I'm so glad that it has re-awakened.

 

I think that the primary problem with group-making is leadership. I would be perfectly fine with creating groups and levels of understanding.... as long as I am the one making the lists. :P When other people make lists, I tend to disagree. ;) Then back to the same old same old.

 

I have come to believe that we (people) are never more alike than we are when we feel completely different/separate/unmatched.

 

I think that the "questions" of biblical literacy, abortion, homosexuality, etc. in politics are attempts to create a believer's table. Trying to find a group that we can feel safe with, accept the opinions of, etc.

 

The problem is finding a litmus test in a set of infinite variables. Maybe a math genius could create an equation to sort people to tables - but I'd still want to be the one weighting the variables!!! :P

 

So............. where does that leave us on a practical level??? My current understanding (which I of course think is a developmental step forward ;) ) is that progress is made, peace is attained when we realize that there is only one table and we're all there and (so unfair) of equal value and worth and .... and.... that we're all pieces of the same whole.

 

So, perhaps the answer, as always, (and I do find this annoying :lol: ) just involves challenging myself to change. To not get caught up in being right (not knowing that I am will take more than a lifetime, I think!), or better, or more.... to just be.

 

To be peace, love, compassion, justice, truth. To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with my God..... eh?

 

Meanwhile, thanks for being a group that I enjoy and feel matched with in the quest for intellectual worship and a living faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem now is how do we promote church leadership without the leaders dominating the other groups? We can look how women have been dominated in other churches and not allowed full participation in decision making. We want to deepen consciousness, reflection and acceptance of many styles of worship without a political agenda. It is a challenge to be inclusive and not manipulated by people with an agenda. People who are attracted to a sensual material concept of life where they see themselves as a body and a mind alone in the world, not as a soul connected to God’s creation where the elements and all living things are an integral part of a whole. It doesn't matter if we go from the outside in or the inside out, we are all connected and we are all one. That is easy to say, the hard part is how to implement it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not a Zen koan meant for my enlightenment then it must be related somehow to my post. Give me a hint. Just say it’s like one hand clapping and I’ll know what you mean. Maybe the poverty of my ability to understand?

 

I guess I'm, one of those who are not mature enough to recognize the maturity in other people and will not, therefore, be invited to the table.

 

I'm sorry that it is all us poor people who are dragging the chain - holding the whole thing back - stopping progress etc .....

 

The church has no one to blame but itself. The church has been caught short by an increasing educated population that can now tell the difference between mushrooms and a compost heap - it has keep its parishioners in the dark and feed them of half-truths, if not outright lies.. The church is now busy trying to work out how to play catch-up. But I fear the horse has bolted - no one is listening any longer to what the church has to say. It is in danger of becoming irrelevant. The rather interesting, if not unfortuate, aspect is that science appears to adopting a somewhat similar blinkered process - it shows little interesting in talking to the 'poor' - now claiming that mantle previously held by the church.

 

Someone did say all things go in cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to shift the discussion slightly with some (sort of) random thoughts.

 

Ecumenism is with us in the form of many organizations supported by several congregations. Here in Ann Arbor there is the Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice (ICPJ). Most of the congregations that are involved in it are toward the progressive end of the scale theologically, but not all. Also, there are individuals from churches over a very wide theological spectrum who participate in ICPJ's programs.

 

My religious experience has included working with Presbyterians, Methodists, Disciples, UCCs, Episcopalians, Lutherans, American Baptists, Quakers, U Us, and Catholics. Some of these experiences were brief, but others lasted for decades. Some of my graduate work was in a seminary consortium that included all of the groups mentioned above.

 

I no longer see much point in one big progressive denomination. People have too much invested, both financially and personally, in staying with what they have. When congregations become marginally viable, their members should give serious thought to merging with other congregations that share the social and theological perspectives, without regard to denomination. There are greater variations within the denominations than there are from one to another.

Edited by grampawombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm, one of those who are not mature enough to recognize the maturity in other people and will not, therefore, be invited to the table.

 

I'm sorry that it is all us poor people who are dragging the chain - holding the whole thing back - stopping progress etc .....

 

The church has no one to blame but itself. The church has been caught short by an increasing educated population that can now tell the difference between mushrooms and a compost heap - it has keep its parishioners in the dark and feed them of half-truths, if not outright lies.. The church is now busy trying to work out how to play catch-up. But I fear the horse has bolted - no one is listening any longer to what the church has to say. It is in danger of becoming irrelevant. The rather interesting, if not unfortuate, aspect is that science appears to adopting a somewhat similar blinkered process - it shows little interesting in talking to the 'poor' - now claiming that mantle previously held by the church.

 

Someone did say all things go in cycles.

I am not at all clear about what you are saying. Are you saying anything more than was already been said with our discussion on boundaries and the possibility for hope for the Church?

 

You want to identify with those that may not end up at the “mature” table. Valid point. Again I would suggest that because the Church has not been perfect and will never be perfect does not mean that we should not attempt to “do Church”. Again I would suggest that “doing Church” requires boundary sensitivity. Knowing that there may be “closet progressives” among those that exclude does not mean to me that we should not exclude those that exclude. But we have had this conversation.

 

I wondering if you picked up on the idea of “levels” and that is what you are responding to. Are you asking how anyone can “define” maturity and so you object to having a separate table for children? If that is your point I would suggest that pluralism provides that “definition”. If one is not mature enough to recognize that a person with a different faith may also be experiencing the same God then they are not mature enough to come to the “mature” table. That may seem like an “arbitrary” boundary to you. Well yes and no but we have had that conversation.

 

At times you give me the impression that you think that you have “progressed” beyond the need to sit at the table at all. You don’t need others to help you understand yourself. That individualism keeps coming out. To the extent that this is true then you may have no interest to relate to others around the table and so the invitation would be meaningless to you anyway. “No one is listening to the Church” means certainly that you are not. Whether the Church has a future is still up in the air. Certainly some people are interested. Spong is interested. I am interested. But why argue about who is right? Either support the Church or not. Seek to change it or not. I will not judge you for not seeking to change/support the Church. I can certainly understand that position. I would just suggest that you not judge too harshly those that still have hope for the Church and are trying to figure out better ways of doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to shift the discussion slightly with some (sort of) random thoughts.

 

Ecumenism is with us in the form of many organizations supported by several congregations. Here in Ann Arbor there is the Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice (ICPJ). Most of the congregations that are involved in it are toward the progressive end of the scale theologically, but not all. Also, there are individuals from churches over a very wide theological spectrum who participate in ICPJ's programs.

 

My religious experience has included working with Presbyterians, Methodists, Disciples, UCCs, Episcopalians, Lutherans, American Baptists, Quakers, U Us, and Catholics. Some of these experiences were brief, but others lasted for decades. Some of my graduate work was in a seminary consortium that included all of the groups mentioned above.

 

I no longer see much point in one big progressive denomination. People have too much invested, both financially and personally, in staying with what they have. When congregations become marginally viable, their members should give serious thought to merging with other congregations that share the social and theological perspectives, without regard to denomination. There are greater variations within the denominations than there are from one to another.

Do you think there is any basis for doing ecumenical work beyond justice issues? In other words has "ecumenism" just become another word for getting together to do the right things? What about having your local group attempt to do interfaith worship services? These have had some success in some places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the primary problem with group-making is leadership. I would be perfectly fine with creating groups and levels of understanding.... as long as I am the one making the lists. :P When other people make lists, I tend to disagree. ;) Then back to the same old same old.

This part of your post just jumped out at me. I know it is based upon my experience in the UU world. The UU world has a history of “anti clergy” and has a history of passive/aggressive behavior towards “leaders”. Somehow they realize they need to have leaders, but there have been some pretty bad experiences for “leaders” coming from those who do not want to be led.

 

I’m wondering how you envision a community without leaders. Is a message board a community? I don't know. Certainly not a Church. I guess it would meet a minimal definition of a community. We may have gatekeepers on message boards, but there are no formal “leaders”.

 

However, you don’t have to go very far on this internet location to find leaders. You have leaders making decisions that affect the face of Progressive Christianity. I would suggest that those leaders will have more impact on Progressive Christianity than anyone posting on this board. This internet location does not appear to be designed to reflect that “one table” that you talk about. It appears to relate to the table of Progressive Christianity. Not only that but it appears to relate to a particular definition of Progressive Christianity (say as opposed to those definitions that focus only on justice issues).

 

I don’t disagree with your goals of peace, etc. and I support the challenge to change starting with our self. I just do not see how the cause of peace, etc will happen without leaders. And obviously leaders will only happen if people are willing to be led.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David -

 

I'm just acknowledging that, no matter how grand and pure the vision, no matter how mature, honest, intelligent, etc then people - - - it is still a group of people. Historically, we (people) tend to develop problems with leadership, corruption, disagreement on principles, inclusion/exclusion, etc. seemingly without exception.

 

As Jim Wallis says, this is just the next reformation. It has happened about every 500 years according to him.

 

I'm advocating taking the whole idea of re-inventing the church less seriously since we have pretty good evidence that it will not be lasting or pure, and getting about the business of being the church. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At times you give me the impression that you think that you have “progressed” beyond the need to sit at the table at all. You don’t need others to help you understand yourself. That individualism keeps coming out. To the extent that this is true then you may have no interest to relate to others around the table and so the invitation would be meaningless to you anyway. “No one is listening to the Church” means certainly that you are not. Whether the Church has a future is still up in the air. Certainly some people are interested. Spong is interested. I am interested. But why argue about who is right? Either support the Church or not. Seek to change it or not. I will not judge you for not seeking to change/support the Church. I can certainly understand that position. I would just suggest that you not judge too harshly those that still have hope for the Church and are trying to figure out better ways of doing it.

 

Valid points David. However what I am pointing out is that I don't think the church has established trust - there are some broken fences than need mending.

 

Indeed, I may 'not be listening'. I hope I am. But what I am hearing is 'more of the same'. It seems, to use another glaring generalisation, those who endeavour to 'do church' have not been, at least as far as I'm aware, taken into the confidence of the church and told that the church has got some things rather wrong. A bit of honesty is needed.

 

The church will survive - but there will be changes. I will probably not live to see them - that's life. But, again from my perspective, it seems that if the church is to survive then it has to acknowledge science - and not in the off hand way that I have heard expressed as if science is another religion the church has to learn to live with. No. If the stories in the Bible are myths then such needs to be acknowledged. The events described in those stories happened in a real world yet they transcended time and space where the inner life, which is just as 'real' as science, is given meaning. Until we, those who 'do church', are liberated from the historical context that these stories are said to contain then we will forever be locked into some past dimension with little hope of moving forward. If such is to be the case then what we do is not religion but something else.

 

The interesting fact is that I think many of those who 'do church' actually realise this - that those great stories are myths. Perhaps there is some cognitive dissonance at work here - we can actually accept that the church teaches 'history' while we read 'myth'. Perhaps many of us who 'do church' are more savvy than the church, which is one reason the church is still on 'hold'. But, the only way to get a younger generation to filling the emptying pews is start admitting a few relevant facts.

Edited by Wayseer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reply to post #139

 

I have been to, and occasionally participated in, several interfaith worship services over the last several decades. Some have been wonderful experiences. But for me the most meaningful ecumenical endeavors have been related to justice issues. I think there is enough moving between denominations that, at least among progressive (or liberal if you prefer) folks, there is little if any interdenominational enmity. There is enough of that within denominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many recognize and admit the difficulties within the "church" and its resulting ineptness. Feeding and caring for those that need help, is far more important than waving your arms in protests, transcending time and conciousness, arguing over who is going to make the lists, excluding the excusivists, and all the other nonsenses. Do it in the name of God or don't. Just be honest about it.

 

There is inherent difficulty with Ecumenalism. It is so inclusive, "...the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide." it becomes a monolithic nightmare.

 

The Ecumenical movement originally sought, through a "functional Christian community based on the common tasks of 'missions' with a mutual understanding on fundamental issues in belief, a united witness to the world and its problems". This site, however, loudly demonstrates that such a movement is virtually impossible, despite all best of intentions.

 

There are undoubtedy massive needs the world over and we really want to help relieve people in distress. In this, we can agree and we can cooperate to a certain point. If this is plurality, OK, but understand: it has only a limited and faint glimmer of hope because politics often corrupt such large scale philanthropic effort.

 

It cannot be called an "Ecumenical" movement because there is no common thread of religious belief or unity. This website can't find a unifying basis for belief in the single faith of Christianity. (too many tadpoles not wanting to be tadpoles) Some advocate exclusion and some don't. Some are pluralists, some aren't. Some believe Jesus is the risen Christ, some won't.

 

Ecumenalism is a lofty and seemingly noble goal, but religions would cease to be religions and politics would battle for the spoils.

 

Such is the stuff of the world.

 

I am sure some successes have occurred. Some interdenominational cooperation has taken place and even some activity may have even come from them. grampawombat could certainly fill us in.

 

The only caveat I bring to the table is this: In the stress you put on community, you speak and act as though we become Christians when we enter that horizontal relationship of community ( "What we do is important, not what we believe") and this is a totally wrong starting point. If this were so, we would not be of any more value than some community or club that does not rely on God. It would all mean 'zero'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a network organization could work to keep corruption at a minimum. Instead of very few people (either a CEO, executive director/management team, or religious leaders) having the power to direct the organization from the "top", a networked organization distributes leadership horizontally throughout the network. This could happen through small groups or teams of people who could serve or worship they way they chose.

 

This horizontal net structure is a natural response to the failure of religious institutions to address the complexity of modern spiritual, social, ecological, and economic problems. This is a grass roots response to the top down control of most religions and yes, Christianity where people have abused, manipulated and used others for selfish or political purposes. Since the 1960's, many people have left institutional religious groups and have become what has been called the "spiritual but not religious" it could be the largest "denomination" in the US. According to surveys, many Christians today are seeking alternative forms of worship in what are called "simple (house) churches" and other "Emergent" grass roots forms. I see this as the Christian Progressive Movement.

 

These grass roots movements could operate on parallel levels but may never work together. For example, the Progressive and Fundamentalist churches, the Religious and even the Non- Religious; business people could bring Spirit to their business but may not think about God. People may be focused on peace but not focus at all on feeding the hungry, energy, or environment; some might be focused on personal spirituality, but not on social action or justice; some might work on areas outside the community but never take the time to get to know their neighbors. Would this be a good place to start to be inclusive with safe guards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United Way may be a model for the organization that you are thinking about. They are a network of groups that “operate on parallel levels but may never work together”. Yet I see a mission or a purpose with the United Way that I do not see in your suggestion. One can pretty well tell whether a group is going to be included in the United Way or not. I can not tell how a group will be included/excluded in the network that you are talking about. The mission or purpose will include/exclude. If your network has no mission or purpose it will not include at all. No one will see the point. If your network has such a broad mission or purpose then there is no way to see how “value is added” to our world by such a network then people will not be motivated to spend time with that network versus the United Way, the local peace group, etc.

 

I sense that you are trying to take your love for unity and make it practical. I encourage you to keep thinking along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality and social service has a profound influence on the individual and the world because it produces an experience. That experience may be emotional, intellectual, physical or spiritual. I feel a network of different groups, the purpose should be to provide harmony, guidance, inspiration and the environment for the individual to grow in the understanding of God, and who one really is. As we come to know the nature of God, His unity and Reality we also know more of our own true being as His reflection. Some groups might approach this strictly through spiritual practice, others through social service, while others through the study of scripture. I think the main purpose would be what is in bold above while the network and groups might change their purpose as situations change. This is open for discussion so I won't put a period

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mission/purpose is related to theology. So secular organizations such as the United Way would not be included (nothing wrong with this but excluding the secular world takes out a lot of people--also a theologically related mission implies that somehow people have to learn theology or learn the "unity" version so you have to know where your "customers" are coming from).

 

So how would this mission be different than the Unity Church? Have you had experience in the Unity Church? If you did not want to be a member why not? If you have been a part of a Unity Church how did you find their ecumenical work? If you were not satisfied with the organization of the Unity Church could you take that Church and change the organizational structure to make it more ecumenical or more like the network that you envision?

 

I like your mission/purpose and some form of that would be appropriate for my dream of a new denomination called the Progressive Christian Church which I think should be locally controlled with the abililty to be flexible and dynamic in response to cultural needs and changes.

 

Again thanks for your love of unity and dreaming about how to implement it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service