Spiritual Growth

A question to consider is this: Is it plausible or even imaginable that an organizational or leadership model might be created that would foster a cultural or institutional dynamic which can successfully lead others towards their own path of intellectual and spiritual growth? Indeed, it may be the case that such a vision is unrealistic unless there is a common basis for understanding the definition of “spiritual growth” itself. Only then can the ideas of legitimacy and social responsibility with regard to religious institutions or social movements be established.

Making Ready

In the book "The Missional Leader" (Roxburgh/Romanuk) there is a chapter called "Cultivating The Imagination of The Missional Leader" in which I found some interesting perspectives regarding the question of whether the mainline denominations or indeed any church based on the traditional models can or will adjust to the cultural situation we are in now. The authors suggest that there is evidence that some individuals are begining to demonstrate a willingness and ability to look at the unconscious narratives that are shaping the way they think and live. This is a hopeful sign that it may be possible to create an environment wherein these questions can be asked and discussed. In the mean time it does appear that it is the job of leaders to provide gentle guidance and prompting in this direction. After considerable effort to engage a variety of people in this dialog it does appear that for a variety of reasons only a small minority are presently equipped to engage these questions head-on. Leaders are going to have to be patient and intentional about providing the conceptual foundation and language necessary to realistically engage those who do not have the background or familiarity with the issues that underlie much of this conversation.

Honest But Fundamental Differences ?

It seems to me that one of the problems we have in this polarized political climate is that we so seldom have an opportunity to engage in a civil debate about the fundamental issues around which there may indeed be a difference of opinion among reasonable people. This problem is clearly evident in the political arena, but also exists in much of the dialog that occurs regarding the state and direction of the mainline churches. It is my view that society in general stands to benefit by having a better understanding about just what it is that we disagree about. Although a better understanding would not necessarily lead to agreement, it may alleviate some of the resentment, and the angry rhetoric that often emanates from both sides.

For the past few weeks I have been struggling to gain an understanding as to what if any common ground exists between the adherents of mainline churches and those who are associated with the ideas of the emergent church. But more specifically, I have attempted to identify the central issues responsible for the tension that exists between the two groups. What are the fundamental issues about which reasonable people may come to a different conclusion?

Two issues in particular are at issue from my perspective. One issue that arises between the traditional church and those within the viewpoint of the emergent church bears on the question "How do we define what it means to be an authentic disciple of Jesus Christ?" The other question, which is actually a subset of the first, could be phrased as "What is actually needed in order to follow the great commission to “go forth and make disciples in all the world?”

After some considerable dialog about this it seems to me that the there is an honest difference of opinion about how we answer the "making disciples" question.

From the mainline church perspective the answer might go something like this:

"If we build and foster a loving and welcoming community of faith, others will come to know us and our community and will be moved by God to understand and accept the gospel message and Christian salvation. Missional outreach for us is multi-faceted. We run soup kitchens, sponsor support groups, offer special musical and topical events, and talk to our friends and family about our lives of which our faith community is the most important part. Essentially the church is for us a place where others can come if they wish to join us. We anticipate that people will have an experience of Christ in their association with us and that this and the Holy Spirit is what will accomplish God's work. Thus, we feel that the emphasis in terms of the great commission is to "be the gospel" and that making disciples is primarily God's work. Faith is God’s gift freely given to those seeking, and we generally do not think it our duty to try and reason and justify to others why we are Christian and to thereby persuade them of the merits and truth of the Christian message. We provide a format and a place where people can join the community of faith as it is expressed among us. We are not particularly concerned about being all things to all people. If our voice does not speak effectively to postmodern culture (whatever that is) we trust that the broader community of faith will find the means necessary to present the gospel in that context. We acknowledge and are concerned regarding the general decline observed in the mainline churches. Some of us feel that this decline is simply an artifact of cultural changes that we have no power to change, and in any case, our experience suggests that it is normal for many people to allow matters of faith fade into the background during their younger years, only to re-emerge later in life. While the church hierarchy is understandably worried about addressing this decline, among the average church goer there is no particular concern. There will always be a faith community in some form wherein we can worship and find community. It does not seem worth the headaches and upheaval that would be required to somehow change the mission or the fundamental characteristics that we identify with and understand as the the church as we have known it.


From the emergent church perspective the emphasis is different:

"Our mission focus is two-fold. First, like the traditional church we want to have a strong sense of community and mission, but we can only realize this if the forms and practices are more consistent with the perspectives and cultural reality that we live in. Also, like the traditional church, we also want open, honest, and accepting relationships with those in the community of faith, but generally we do not believe this is possible for us in large traditional Sunday services wherein the relationship is primarily one of "provider and consumer." We believe worship gatherings should be more participatory and creative than is generally the case in traditional church settings. More importantly, with respect to outreach to the broader community we feel it is critical that we meet non-believers on their own terms and provide an opportunity for a two-way dialog about not only what it means to be a Christian and how the gospel can be understood, but also one that openly and honestly addresses the challenges to faith, especially from the perspective of those who are immersed in the current cultural context and who often are very skeptical regarding the relevance and value of the traditional Christian church. One way we do this is to find creative ways of having an informal and multi-faceted sacred space that is culturally and contextually comfortable for both us and those we engage with. While we do not expect our numbers to be large, we feel there are a significant number of people of all ages who are seeking spiritual truth, but are lost in the darkness of the current cultural context. And we believe that our experience and perspective enable us to find common ground with those who are seeking God’s truth. We realize that our vision and understanding is not shared by many within normative Christianity. Yet, we believe that it is in the interest of our friends in the mainline churches to take seriously the dramatic decline in their numbers and the marked increase in the average membership age. Though it must be said that some of us question whether there is any practical benefit to addressing ourselves to this issue or in seeking common ground or a partnership with institutions that simply do not share our vision.

What We Fear

Within every perceived problem the lies the implicit question, why? And in our pursuit of truth it is in the succession of whys we find the opportunity for growth. It is not the truth that holds us back, but error, misperception, lack of perspective and ignorance. It is so interesting to me that it is not the error itself that most condemns us, but the fact that we so often are unwilling to admit the possibility that we are wrong, or go to such great lengths to cover-up the error in judgment or moral lapse. And this reality is no less true of institutions and group consciousness than it is of the individual.

Thus it is no mystery why civil discourse is so rare on topics that touch on the areas of religion and politics. And by extension it is therefore not surprising that the nations, cultures, and religions of the world are, and always have been, sharply divided. So we might ask, does this mean that human civilization is forever trapped in the cycle of ignorance, attack, and recriminations? From the macro perspective, and in the light of human history, it does indeed seem the situation is hopeless.

And so we ask why? What is it in human nature that prevents the vast majority of individuals, institutions, religious communities, and societies in general from real progress and growth? My view is that it is the emotion of fear that is the primary factor underlying the failure of individuals and societies to advance. While lack of trust and moral virtue are very significant factors, it is arguably the case that even these are symptoms of fear.

In our discussions on the subject of religion and faith the element of fear therefore should not be underestimated. One might reasonably argue that the fear of death is the foundation of all other fears, and it follows that any perceived threat to the ways and means that human beings use to cope with this fear will be vigorously opposed.


Our worldview is the primary mechanism that we use for deriving meaning from the chaos and uncertainty that are cold realities of the world. Our worldview is consists of the whole structure and array of belief that we as individuals construct for these purposes. This system of belief is, in a way, like a house of cards. Even a slight disruption of one or two cards can create a state of instability in the entire system. Thus, in practical terms, if any of our political or religious views are called into question, the stability of our entire system of belief is potentially at risk.

Is this fear of the stability of our belief system based on a realistic assessment of the facts or is it primarily a fear of the unknown?

Now what?

Oh crap, I forgot to check my assumptions. There are a bunch of them now that I think of it. Many of these are key to the idea of mission and purpose from my perspective.

1. Is there is a lack of a deep community in the institutional churches? If so is this due to fear of the potential for massive dissagreement if we unravel the truth of what others actually believe?

2. Is it fear of a loss of belief, on the part of some, that prevents them from an honest examination of the challenges to faith? Is this examination beneficial or necessary?

3. Is it possible that there are a statistically insignificant number of people who are truly interested in exploring the issues of meaning and purpose?

4. What practices, beliefs or state of consciousness are requisite to a claim to authentic Christian discipleship?

5. Is it possible that all are on a spiritual quest, regardless of whether they realize it or not?

6. How are we to truly understand the great commission? Is a shared vision of discipleship for more than very small group of people possible? If not - how can we begin to imagine, in the broader context, anything like a community of faith?

7. If certain of our assumptions prove to be in error does this bring into question whether anything meaningful at all can be articulated in terms of mission by those who claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ?

8. In light of the preceding is it possible that nominal Christianity is adequate for most people?

9. In the broader context is it possible or beneficial to even try to convey, or to any meaningful degree confer with others regarding the reality and texture of spiritual consciousness?

10. Given significance, number, and difficulty of these questions, is it realistic, in the context of Christian community and dialog, to hope for anything more than a general state of chaotic ambiguity?

11. Is it realistic to make the assumption that we can sufficiently undestand these questions, and in a way that justifies any vision of mission in a broader social context ?

Mark

Exploration

Exploration is a major subtext of my life. And yet it has not been exploration as an end in itself, but as a means for experiencing the unknown first-hand, and as a result obtaining a piece of the meaning puzzle.

At the age of 22 I abandoned the version of Christianity that dominated the lives of my parents, and for the next 15 years my view of the Christian perspective was generally one of critical skepticism. During all of this time I searched and struggled to make sense of the world as I found it. Though it was nearly imperceptible to me then, I did make steady progress as I explored and examined a wide range of philosophical and theological approaches. An unexpected result of this somewhat arduous, and for many years a quite liminal philosophical state, was the discovery of something that might be described as Christian enlightenment.

Having arrived at an internally consistent sense of meaning and understanding has for me been a great blessing, and yet one that is virtually impossible to convey to others who have not themselves arrived at a similar point of view.

And then I learned about the emergent church. At the last Sierra Pacific ELCA synod assembly I was introduced to these ideas and a light went on. As a result I took the initiative to learn about the viewpoint, values, and philosophy of the emergent church and to explore the meaning and relevance of postmodern culture.

For me there was an immediate sense of resonance with the things I was learning. However, as I attempted to convey this new understanding to the other members of my ELCA church I found the response was frequently one of skepticism and even scorn. Nonetheless the pastor and spiritual gifts minister were receptive so I initiated a weekly seminar to study the ideas and implications of postmodernity, the end of Christendom, the decline of the institutional church, and the dominant philosophy of the emergent church.

After about 8 weeks there continues to be regular attendees at this seminar and a level of genuine interest, albeit mixed with some confusion and apprehension. While it has been a little sobering to see these ideas received with such reticence, I am at the same time encouraged to see what seems to be slow but yet steady progress in communicating what I have learned.

This is one of the benefits of experience. I know what it is to struggle and grow in ways that are virtually imperceptible in the short term.