Gaia: Integral Christianity - Christianity and Culture is there space for integral?

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:36:22 GMT

it would be glorious for you to study history in Europe, I think, though you're right, you'd really need to have a good level of German.

I hear you too about traditions we see as cruel and rights violations. I really struggle with this myself with certain things like female genital mutilation to name just one.

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://russiamoore.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:56:49 GMT

Yes, I think most people (or at least most people who don't suffer from a troubling imbalance in priorities) are ultimately looking out for what they feel best serves people. I may strongly disagree that same-sex marriage harms society in any way, but I respect that, for many people, they feel it does and *that* motivates them to fight against it.

One of my goals is actually to study history in Europe. I can't wait to see how they view the world wars (I'm focusing on culture in the first half of the 20th century). I already have an idea from my mother about different perspectives in history (and very different perspectives from my grandfather! It's always interesting hearing him talk about his childhood in Africa as the privileged white upper class--though you almost have to stop up your ears at some bits), but to be really immersed in it, to be able to actually see the places and talk to people who recall reconstruction... It's something I haven't really had as a North American. I really hope I can get my German up to snuff!

I've noted some struggles amongst people working towards peace struggle with whether it's better to overwrite certain traditions we see as cruel and rights violations, or if this is some new form of imperialism and enforcing our moral codes and cultural mores on others with "lesser" practices. It's very hard to draw hat line, but I think if we can really get a dialogue working between very different viewpoints in a calm, respectful manner, it does help work out where we can find common ground.

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:06:46 GMT

That's excellent. Yes, there are many perspectives but no one has a corner on ultimate Truth.

Love,

Nicole

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://peacehealer.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:21:28 GMT

Hi, Russia - I think your point is *very* well taken. This was apparent to me several years ago when I attended a meeting of a committee that was addressing the needs of local children and teens through a framework of "resiliency" - ie, what skills and strengths did the youngsters already possess, and how could those strengths be fostered and expanded to face other challenges. Sitting next to me at the table was a local pastor who was well known for his very conservative views. We had encountered each other various previous times around lesbian bisexual gay transgender issues - and tended to be far on opposite sides. But there we were at this table - because in a strange way, we were both passionately concerned about childrens' futures. Does that mean we agree on just about anything? Probably not. But it did really make me reflect on how coming at something from such diverse perspectives kept bringing us to the same places.

So ... in some ways, I wish we could send adults from the US up to Canada for a history course ... and invite Canadians to come south for a similar experience to help all of us better understand how much the side of the table we sit on influences who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are.

once again -

thank you

Sylvia

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://russiamoore.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:28:41 GMT

I tend to think about worldview and spheres a lot on and around Independence Day. Both of my biological parents are from Canada (Mum's from Europe originally, though), and as a young child my knowledge of history was from a very Anglo-Canadian outlook. We subscribed to a magazine about Canadian history, and it had stories of Canadian settlers and adventurers and soldiers, as well as some information on people of the First Nations. All I knew of the American war for independence was from a loyalist British view! When w moved to the US I learned about how "right" the American patriots were and how wrong and "evil" the loyalists and Brits were. Then I grew up and actually took an interest in all this history, and discovered no one person was "right" or "wrong" 100%. The patriots gave us freedom of religion and speech and other good things, but they also went to war with their home country after getting that country into a war and not wanting to help pay for the war afterward. No one involved was a saint! It was really a lot of politics on both ends. I also discovered, after being a History major for a year or two, that the US "won" the War of 1812. I had learned that Canada and Britain won. What different views of things! It taught me something that I really think is vital, which is to learn about and respect different views. And to never take a secondary source at face value ;) Now I suggest to people who talk about how great X group was in Y war for fighting for what they believed in that the other side was likely doing the same thing. It's all about understanding the other side. I think when you boil down most disagreements, be it between two individuals, two religious groups, or two countries, when you really boil things down they are fighting over the same thing for similar reasons.

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:38:49 GMT

well done. when i helped moderate same-sex blessings discussions at our church, i did not have as much success.

love,

nicole

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://peacehealer.gaia.com — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:31:34 GMT

Hi, Russia - that sense of interconnectedness that you're talking about - and that I see more active in your generation - is really encouraging to me [s]. I've been sending "happy in-ter-dependence day" greetings to people today.

One of the strong threads through much of the Bible is community and the importance of caring for the most vulnerable. The kind of communal thinking we're talking about here has sadly been rare in the United States for quite a while - I think in large part because toxic consumerism so heavily emphasizes self-absorbed individualism. Whatever might be said about President Obama - I deeply appreciate the way he keeps sharing the vision of the collective good - and hope for a shared brighter future.

So - happy interdependence day to you, too :-)

peace and blessings -

Sylvia

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://russiamoore.gaia.com — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:01:01 GMT

Your story of the discussion of healing prayers reminded me of a similar experience I had (on a more political topic) last year. I had sort of jumped in to "save" someone who had been arguing for same-sex marriage with a group actively fighting against it, all from a very conservative local church. Someone had pointed to the young man's cross necklace and said he was contradictory, so I said that I was Christian and believed in equal marriage rights. This allowed the young man to escape the uncomfortable confrontation, but now I was stuck in his place. I was able to quote and reference scripture well enough that the others put away their bibles, and I was able to suggest a third option, one where civil unions would be granted to anyone by the government and churches and other religious/spiritual groups would dictate who they marry, as marriage is more of a social/spiritual union traditionally. I wasn't expecting a hearty welcome to such an idea, but they thought it an admirable compromise. I really wish I had kept the conversation going in that more constructive bend than let it derail again, because I really think if people find their commonalities and can compromise, there is very little reason to argue angrily. While many older individuals I've mentioned the civil union idea (which I do not take credit for--I believe this is essentially what happens in many European countries already!) seem affronted by turning away "tradition," many younger individuals, perhaps because they see me as an equal, are able to see where I'm coming from.

I do wonder how much of this is because people of my generation haven't had the same struggles as older individuals. My parents went to school believing that Russia could blow them up at any moment. My grandparents saw devastating wars throughout their childhoods and young adult lives. My generation barely remembers the Gulf War or previous economic difficulties, so there has been less "banding together" so to speak. Now that there is war and economic troubles, it is easier for us to have a detached outlook from one's small personal sphere. Unfortunately it can also lead to a rather selfish outlook, as evidenced by two young businessmen I overheard recently complaining that younger workers were being laid off--despite the fact that none of these younger workers had dependents at home to care for and had recent degrees to make them more hirable than their coworkers in their 40s and above. Because I was raised in a very family-oriented environment by thrifty parents (my mother came to North America as a refugee), I try to look as much as possible to the wider community in whether something is acceptable or not. Is it hurting others? Is there a way to minimize or eliminate harm to others? This fits nicely with the instructions to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," so it has become the basis of my moral and ethical compass. I think for many young people this is becoming a more popular sort of morality.

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://peacehealer.gaia.com — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:42:04 GMT

Hi, Russia - I grew up outside the church, and was baptized right after graduating from college. Shortly after that, I had the fortune and privilege of connecting with members of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (www.bpfna.org) - which is where I eventually learned about the work of Sojourners and other powerful witnesses of faith in action like the Fellowship of Reconciliation - www.for.org

The challenge of connecting with both conservative Christian folk and folks who may be spiritual but not religious (www.sbnr.org) is quite a balancing act - I hear you. I agree deeply that folks of your generation connect much differently to religion and politics than the preceding generations do (I"m in my mid forties). I'm really encouraged to see many signs of loving pragmatism and hopeful coming together emerging. I had a very interesting talk on Sunday at a local community festival with someone who's part of a quite conservative church. He and other friends were offering free healing prayers - and he was wonderfully open to my talking with him about a parallel ministry at the progressive church I attend - and how it is based on reiki (www.reiki.org)

I think often connecting is about framing our language in such a way that we can share meaning and understanding, whatever the context.

An idea that continues to inspire me:

"Your lived faith may be the only Bible someone will ever read".

Thank you for being a conduit of the Living Word :-)

bright blessings -

Sylvia

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:37:01 GMT

i'm glad the article i posted so many months ago inspired you. i like your approach of living your truth, it's a beautiful way to live.

i think you would enjoy sojourners, they are very much about love in action.

blessings,

nicole

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://russiamoore.gaia.com — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:26:27 GMT

I can't say that I am. I will have to look into them!

I'll preface the following by saying that I'm a college student who has been raised Christian with a lot of exploring of theologies, but was baptized Episcopalian, a more liberal yet traditional denomination.

I find the issues surrounding youth and religion, especially Christianity and other "conservative" religions very interesting. Though I consider myself liberal, I find I have a lot of friends who are young, conservative Christians. In order to maintain peace we often have to change the topic from religion and politics, but sometimes we can get a great dialogue going on interpretations of scripture and what is ultimately God's will, etc. I find it interesting how younger generations look at their faith and their politics differently from older generations.

I think the tone of the article was very hopeful and inspired some hope in me, because quite often I feel I have to hide that I am Christian from people before they know me well so that they don't write me off as one of "those" people. The fact that my faith inspires me to help others non-judgmentally (or to try my best to) and do other things that I see fitting into a Christian lifestyle but that don't fit into the stereotype of an American Christian seems to throw people off. Rather than pushing my beliefs on someone, I prefer to live by example. If they like what they see, they'll see that people of faith aren't all extremists out to takeover the world! what better way to show that your faith is worth someone's time than by being a good person?

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://peacehealer.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:19:37 GMT

Hi, Russia - it's good to see activity in this group/pod :-). Are you familiar with the work of the Sojourners community in Washington DC? They do powerful advocacy around issues of poverty, hunger, and homelessness. Jim Wallis is head of that community.

What about this article do you find most interesting?

blessings -

Sylvia

Re: If It's Not Good News, It's Not Evangelical - by Jim Wallis

http://russiamoore.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:28:19 GMT

Sorry to bring this up to top after more than six months, but thanks for posting this article. It's very interesting.

Re: The ALPHA COURSE

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:39:15 GMT

hi bjorn

i know a lot about alpha. nicky is a great guy and i think the movement has been helpful to a lot of people.

i joined the discussion but am not sure what to do next

it looks so different from the other pods

love and blessings

nicole

The ALPHA COURSE

http://universalaikidojo.gaia.com — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:41:13 GMT

Dear all,

I'd like to invite you to discuss Jesus on the Christian Alpha Course pod here on Gaia. The discussion board covers a range of issues in regards to a broad understanding of Christianity; of Jesus and the meaning of the church.

Also, you will find links to the official Alpha Course website where a world wide map can guide you to a course near you. It is a beautiful introduction into a modern approach to Jesus, a relaxed dialog exploring the meaning of life through a Christian perspective.

I'd like to encourage all to participate in the the discussion if any of the topics raise questions in your own understanding of Jesus.

God Bless,
Bjorn

Re: Responding to "The Spirituality of Tomorrow"

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:07:37 GMT

Hi, Dave,

I've been thinking about your response to me as well, feeling into it, since of course I admire your desire not to distance yourself from others or "artificialize" your relationship with them by identifying with some standard of superiority. I totally understand that.

What I do not see is the causal link you appear to be drawing: I recognize it as a possibility, but do not see it as necessary or unavoidable. To admit certain subjective distinctions does not, in my mind, necessarily distance you from others. For instance, you have more knowledge, a more mature ego-structure, a fuller grasp of ethics and compassion, a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of human suffering, than your young children, I am sure, and yet I do not expect that acknowledging that distances you in any way from them, or diminishes your love for them or your connection to them in any way. Simply because you have your priorities straight! You can acknowledge qualitative/structural differences and yet not found your identity on those things or base your relationships on those things.

If you think simply in terms of the "expanding sphere" model you've been discussing, I think you can say (accurately, without hubris) that some moral perspectives are broader and more encompassing than others. There are real distinctions in moral scope of vision, of inclusiveness, with real implications for reasoning and behavior, between someone who thinks egocentrically, someone who thinks and relates ethnocentrically, and someone who holds more of a universal (Christ-like) perspective. This is not a judgment of the inherent value or love-worthiness of any individual, but it is a distinction that CAN be made, based on a number of factors, and which does have relative value. Making such a distinction can even be an aid to compassionate relationship, if we can perceive the horizons that are currently "in place" around any particular person's perspectives, since this will help us to understand the "base" from which they act and the presuppositions that are currently in place which are influencing their behaviors and their judgments.

You wrote: "As soon as I say to someone else "my viewpoint is morally superior, and you should
follow it," even if my viewpoint aspires to selfless service, I become the enemy."

In my view, this scenario does not follow from what I've been saying. It's not something I would do, for instance, even though I do recognize the validity of making relative moral distinctions and evaluative judgments regarding human actions, beliefs, and so on. But if I believe someone is holding a view which may magnify their suffering because of its limitations or rigidity or whatever, then I do believe there is a time, within the overall context of loving relationship, to issue challenges, to inspire self-inquiry, and so on. Recognizing certain structural patterns, for instance, and working to provoke growth beyond currently held norms, does not require the imposition from without of a particular worldview. You can trust the other to find their way, in their own way; you can have faith in the working of Spirit in that individual, to bring forth the flowers native to their climes.

You wrote: "With regard to "Transcendence," an elephant who is self aware is no closer to
being a butterfly than an elephant who lives in the moment."

That's true. But an elephant who lives in the moment and is self-aware is different, in a meaningful way, from one who lives in the present and is not.

Warm wishes,

Bruce

Re: Responding to "The Spirituality of Tomorrow"

http://ecumencist.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:16:32 GMT

Hi Bruce,

I've been mulling this over for a week, and also considering my own sense of discomfort
with naming any philosophy as "superior" to any other.

I can say "in my opinion, St. Francis' philosophy of selfless servitude is morally superior to
Adolf Hitler's philosophy of cultural superiority."

I can say "I aspire to St. Francis' moral standards of selflessness."

But as soon as I say "The philosophy which I believe in is morally superior," like
Adolf Hitler, I claim cultural superiority for myself, and I lose selflessness.

I serve others because I care about others. As soon as I say that I serve others because
its the morally superior thing to do, I'm not selfless any more, I'm serving a morally
superior standard, and my focus is shifted from "others" to the standard.

As soon as I say to someone else "my viewpoint is morally superior, and you should
follow it," even if my viewpoint aspires to selfless service, I become the enemy.

Even with regard to Adolf Hitler, I have not suffered the kind of demoralizing poverty that
the German people did post WWI which inspired at minimum an apathy towards the
suffering of others.

With regard to "Transcendence," an elephant who is self aware is no closer to
being a butterfly than an elephant who lives in the moment...

This seems like a blunt way to end, but its unintentional, I'm late for work.

Be well...

:)

Dave

Re: Responding to "The Spirituality of Tomorrow"

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:03:16 GMT

Hi, Dave,

I share your egalitarian impulse but appear to be more ready to allow for a degree of relative qualitative difference than you are. I think it's worthwhile to explore this.

My approach, perhaps not surprisingly, is to adopt a both/and perspective: in this case, in allowing one to say that individuals may be both the same and different in terms of their relationship to Spirit. The difference here is whether one takes an absolute or a relative perspective: absolutely, all beings are the same in their relationship to Spirit; on the relative, manifest realm (including the realm of relative subjective experience), they are different. This approach is a variation on the Buddhist two truths doctrine.

Your metaphor of the expanding globe makes sense to me, conceptually, but it strikes me as having the potential to erase or flatten meaningful distinctions that MAY be made on the relative level.

Consider individuals who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit and those who don't. How do you explain the difference, if you do not allow for relative level qualitative differences (if all apparent differences are only horizontal and therefore morally on par)? Or, with regard to the beliefs and practices that people adopt: Is there a meaningful difference, qualititatively, in terms of actual understanding and "realization" and expression of the nature of Spirit, between a Wahabist terrorist and someone like Karl Barth or Thomas Merton?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Responding to "The Spirituality of Tomorrow"

http://ecumencist.gaia.com — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:03:55 GMT

Hi Bruce,

Some of our discussions regarding "awareness" and "evolution" remind be very
strongly of the book "Jonathan Livingston Seagull," from many years ago...

I was sitting in a Christian (Methodist) service of worship this morning, and the pastor,
during the sermon, brought up one of the "hot buttons" I have that we have been
discussing in this thread. The topic was the "superiority" of one individual or
cultural transcendental awareness or interpretation vs another.

This particular pastor is intellectually oriented, so, surprize, his assertion was that
after a "Salvation event," there is a process that one can pursue which leads one
deeper into closeness with Christ, and this path includes study, knowledge, and
practice of Love. This was based on readings from 1 Peter.

I've seen this so many times, so many ways, that people of a particular viewpoint, with a
particular set of strenghts, be they Spiritual, intellectual, or even physical, or
self disciplined, assert with great confidence that "their way," and "their method," and "their
interpretation," is the "right" path, and "their position," or awareness, or whatever, is
superior to others.

A model to consider occurred to me at that moment, based on your description of
an "ever evolving, ever becoming" viewpoint.

Consider the possibility that all of Creation is on the face of an ever expanding globe.
Some individuals are in a place which is Theistic, some Integral, some Spiritual, some
Intellectual, some even Animistic, some just "Existing."

There's no denying that we are all interrelated on this globe, and in a sense, we're all in
the exact same place in the process of "expansion." We may move from one "continent"
to another on the face of this globe, but none of these movements bring us any closer than
anyone else to anywhere beyond the globe that we're on.

And yet, we all also individually sense our own "evolution," our own expansion, our own
development, as the globe expands. Some have a greater awareness of the expansion,
but as we've discussed, our awareness may lead us to a greater sense of humility, in
communion with all others on the face of this globe we share. Others, with perhaps less
awareness, are also experiencing this "evolution," and may interpret it in different ways, but
its still common to all of Creation.

I like this model, because it satisfies my egalitarian instincts, that no one interpretation
or awareness is necessarily superior in a true "closer to transcendence" sense than
any other.

Re: Responding to "The Spirituality of Tomorrow"

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:54:41 GMT

Okay, I'm home now and can continue...

I think we're saying the same thing, or something similar. The way I would talk about it is as a movement of transcendence and inclusion in ever widening circles of embrace. I was having a hard time grasping exactly what you meant by horizontal transcendence, but I believe I have a better sense of it now.

I do see transcendence as "built in" to the overall process of the unfolding of growth and development, of evolution and becoming, on the level of Creation. So, transcendence is an ongoing, recurrent part of life -- a "death" to old forms and structures and the emergence or birth of new ones. But, according to my own spiritual background, I also believe that there is an ultimate transcendence, an ultimate union that goes beyond this realm of becoming ... not in a way that it necessarily leaves it behind, but in a way which allows for a fuller embrace.

One perspective that Integral Theory brings to the table that is arguably different from most traditional religions is that it suggests that evolution, when really acknowledged, forces us to revision our understanding of enlightenment or salvation. Because a person who has a nondual realization at one point in their personal evolution, or at one historical point in human evolution, may very well realize oneness with all of creation -- all of Being on gross material and subtle spiritual levels -- but because the Kosmos is creatively unfolding, enfolding greater levels of depth and inclusiveness, continually growing and evolving into new forms of complexity, that oneness then is not the same as (and not likely as full as) what oneness would be at a later point in history. The "potential" of enlightenment, historically, is open, in other words. There is no final end point, from this perspective, beyond which growth and deepening is impossible, even in the manifest world.

Spiritual fulfillment then is understood as the union of freedom and fullness, where freedom (the openness of Spirit) is absolute and unbounded, but fullness is always fuller and fuller.

Best wishes,

Balder