tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37753115676253468812024-02-19T07:06:27.691-08:00Naked SAMADHIwhere soul seeks growthMatt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-27227259528272327852008-11-23T11:22:00.001-08:002008-11-23T11:22:57.254-08:00Eating Some FruitAn Exercise<br /><br />When you feel so moved, grab a piece of your favorite fruit and eat it. Try to eat it as mindfully as possible – pay attention only to what is happening in that moment. Pay attention to taste and texture and the raw experience of the eating. <br /><br />Now write about it. Put into words what that experience was like. Try to capture the fullness of it. Translate that experience into words. <br /><br />When I have done this myself I have noted a number of things.<br /><br />1. The experience is far more complex than I am able to capture in writing. My words automatically reduce the complexity of reality. The description of a thing doesn’t come close to accurately describing a thing in its fullness. As such language/reason is always removed from reality.<br /><br />2. If I pay attention, I find that I am writing not about an experience, but about a memory of an experience. My memory may be more or less complete, but there has been some subtle shift from the direct experience to a mental image of the experience and it is clear to me that the mental image is very similar to a “dream” of that experience – it is a reshaping of what was.<br /><br />3. I notice that I was not my eating. This may seem obvious, but it is an important insight. “I” did not eat the fruit, but rather “I” watched the fruit being eaten. At some level, I was merely a witness to the eating of the fruit which simply happened as I watched. <br /><br />If you try this, let me know what happens for you.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-54167973484391090282008-06-14T10:51:00.001-07:002008-06-29T13:14:29.687-07:00Compassion and Growth<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg91pYww9CKTyxjaTqnfJnoLkVeifBOswN4v00iXPXCUPFtvwAHKFdgZrKDMj5iMawaz0_YqhOXiCUQrRdeX5iX5N0nG8Nl0pmujrIv0bt7EyPfcvJ8wHNh6JTQXbKvAt43PbtTvTpqLk/s1600-h/conversation%5B1%5D.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5211805060405237970" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg91pYww9CKTyxjaTqnfJnoLkVeifBOswN4v00iXPXCUPFtvwAHKFdgZrKDMj5iMawaz0_YqhOXiCUQrRdeX5iX5N0nG8Nl0pmujrIv0bt7EyPfcvJ8wHNh6JTQXbKvAt43PbtTvTpqLk/s200/conversation%5B1%5D.jpg" border="0" /></a> I have been returning to issues of church growth over the last few weeks. There is much to be said about it - and the gods know that there there has been a monumental amount of ink used to discuss it. Many of these books are worthy and deeply thoughtful and many are premised on notions similar to what follows, but there is a core to church growth that, it seems, too often gets lost in the the techniques and the strategies and the programs and the intake process and all the rest of the machinery that supports a growing congregation.<br /><br />To begin with the exception, it is important to recognize that every once in a great while someone comes into our communities that really shouldn't be there. They present a danger to the safety and well-being of others or they are so deeply mired in their own psychological dysfunction that the community cannot be of help to them without tearing at its own fabric.<br /><br />That said, these cases are rare. For the most part, the people walking through our doors - whether members or friends or strangers - are "normal". Yet such normalcy masks something far, far deeper. There is profound beauty and grace that exists in each and every person in our midst. And every visitor to our <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">community</span> contains every bit as much of that same grace and beauty. Each person contains complexities beyond wonderment and profound possibilities for connection and contribution within our communities. This goes far beyond our first principle - it is a declaration not only of the inherent worth and dignity of each human being, but of the almost infinite wonder of actuality and potentiality embodied in each person in our midst.<br /><br />Every person we encounter in our churches has a story filled with remarkable joy and heartbreaking pathos. Every person bears gifts and ideas. Every person has something to offer us. Every person has aching longings and dreams to be fulfilled. Every person is poetry incarnate. Every person wants to contribute and every person wants to exist in a place where they are seen and heard and, most of all, embraced in love.<br /><br />Every person who walks through the door is far more precious and valuable than any jewel. To the extent there is divinity in this world, that divinity is reflected in the lives of those we rub shoulders with every day in our churches.<br /><br />Yet our life together seems so profoundly ordinary. We have committee meetings, we squabble over this or that, we fret about the success of our stewardship campaigns or what someone in the congregation did or said.<br /><br />It is easily to loose sight of the very big picture. It is easy to loose sight of the poetry and grace and compassion and spaciousness that allow our communities to grow and prosper. And the remedy is so simple. It is to simply listen. To listen with heart. To listen with compassion.<br /><br />People long to be heard and when they feel heard, they connect and when they connect they contribute of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">themselves</span>.<br /><br />We spend so much time on the surface of issues and not enough time simply listening. If that listening starts within our communities and we become centers where people are heard and supported and encouraged to grow and change, our communities will grow. In a culture of profound alienation, what people most want is connection. They want to be seen and heard and understood. They want someone to understand what they bring to the community - both in their neediness but also, and more importantly, in their fullness. They want someone who recognizes their gifts and values them. They want people who will listen to their ideas and most importantly feel that the person behind the ideas was seen and heard and honored.<br /><br />If our communities become centers of deep compassion, and profoundly compassionate listening, we will not be able to build churches fast enough.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-19181963999119898232008-03-07T16:15:00.000-08:002008-03-10T06:42:54.540-07:00Why I Don’t Hate Evangelicals: Part I<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpVuqlBfud7JMftywUMu_viWMXN3AfDms1jKoxzqC3KZfjnFS93YFK5aCW8oFpe0VWbKKwmvjL7scrnjvyh7QD_kB3U5FM0QPVKXgFZnBg44cf_v0ogjpPLw6iFeo7rnT9zz2nsK3guhg/s1600-h/T8EGCAV0W7Q8CA32Q1NLCAQ3E2AVCAFMYTCYCAWSWTI5CALNTETICALK1Y78CAXBE95ECA8VWC2FCACJ3VW1CA5QWSQMCAOL3CEACAUZ13XXCAJSLLGYCAM8V8RACAEY1U4SCA4WM8AECAZS3913.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5175158750269206962" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpVuqlBfud7JMftywUMu_viWMXN3AfDms1jKoxzqC3KZfjnFS93YFK5aCW8oFpe0VWbKKwmvjL7scrnjvyh7QD_kB3U5FM0QPVKXgFZnBg44cf_v0ogjpPLw6iFeo7rnT9zz2nsK3guhg/s320/T8EGCAV0W7Q8CA32Q1NLCAQ3E2AVCAFMYTCYCAWSWTI5CALNTETICALK1Y78CAXBE95ECA8VWC2FCACJ3VW1CA5QWSQMCAOL3CEACAUZ13XXCAJSLLGYCAM8V8RACAEY1U4SCA4WM8AECAZS3913.jpg" border="0" /></a>We in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UU</span></span></span> church have a low tolerance for evangelical Christians. In our <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">intolerance</span>, we tend to lump all orthodox Christians<a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3775311567625346881#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> into one category and then dismiss them as deluded and morally inferior. This means that evangelical Presbyterians are painted with the same brush as tent revivalists. We fail to make important distinctions and to see nuances that exist not only among individual Christians but also in broad groups of “evangelicals”. There is a word for ascribing negative characteristics to broad swaths of people – prejudice. We suffer from this type of prejudice and it gets expressed in the same way prejudice expresses itself in any other group – demonizing, fear mongering, “us versus them” thinking and so on. As always, the antidote to prejudice is understanding.<br /><br />In the interests of full disclosure, I hold a Masters of Divinity from Fuller Theological Seminary (the intellectual center of the Evangelical left) and before “loosing my faith” in 1984 considered myself to be an Evangelical Christian. Much of what follows reflects my insider’s understanding of this from a relatively sophisticated level – I was at the heart of the intellectual engine of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">neo</span></span></span>-evangelicalism and therefore keenly attuned to the nuances and differences within the conservative wing of Christian church in America. My current information is admittedly a bit out of date, but hopefully not so much so as to undermine the usefulness of this post and the next.<br /><br />This blog entry will come in two parts. The first will trace the history of the evangelical movement in the United States and try to tease out a number of key components and lineages that help us to place the overall conservative religious movement in a broader context of religious history. The second will attempt to assess the evangelical movement from a perspective of human development by looking at social and cognitive lines of development and their interplay with belief systems.<br /><br />So let’s start with a little history….<br /><br /><strong>Evangelicalism</strong><br /><br />The strands of Evangelicalism in America has parallel but different roots. However, all of these strands trace their deepest roots to the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s. During that time, the Anglican Church in England was deeply entrenched and wedded to upper class interests. This was true both in England and the Colonies. The religion was largely civil and had become depersonalized in many respects. It was a sterile, intellectual faith that was articulated by a church which, by its very mandate, was an extension of the state. Against this backdrop arose the Methodist movement initiated by John Wesley. This movement emphasized personal experience of the divine, personal piety<a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3775311567625346881#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> and social justice. There was a strong emphasis in this movement on the notion of free will and the commitment (conversion) to the saving work of Christ. Soon another stream arose from the Calvinist tradition, represented by George Whitfield in England. Both of these movements swept through the urban lower classes. The Methodist movement in particular emphasized a keen interest in social change through the betterment of society. The Calvinist tradition (with its post-millennial <a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3775311567625346881#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> point of view) also believed in progress of humanity towards an eventual kingdom of God on earth in which justice and mercy would be available to all. These groups were far from separatist. They were deeply engaged in social reform and held deep convictions about the importance of social justice.<br /><br />In the United States a Calvinist preacher, Jonathan Edwards, was preaching a message of personal conversion in Northampton Massachusetts which began to spread throughout the urban areas of the north. The movement swept the colonies in the 1730s and 40s through the work of both Wesley and Whitfield. among others. Much of this Great Awakening occurred in northern urban settings though Wesley rode into the south and found success there. These plantings of Methodists in the south lead to the second Great Awakening in the early 1800s primarily in the Appalachian region and tidewater states. This time the religious movement largely took the form the tent revival meetings and focused on personal conversion and personal piety (particularly abstinence – alcoholism on the frontier was epidemic).<br /><br />The Third Great Awakening began in the 1850s and had a strong social gospel component. This was a largely urban movement spawned by opposition to slavery and then to the exploitation of labor and the excesses of the gilded age. It was largely populist in its message and post-millennial in it understanding (i.e. that Christ would return when peace and justice had been established throughout the earth). While many rural areas were touched by this movement, it was largely urban in its focus. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Universalist</span></span></span> movement was an outgrowth of this time of religious ferment. (Note: See Jeff's comment for a well taken correction to this last <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">sentence</span>.)<br /><br /><strong>Fundamentalism<br /></strong><br />Fundamentalism takes its name from a twelve volume series of essays entitled “The Fundamentals” published between 1910 and 1915. These essays reflected a number of specific tenets and advanced one important new belief. The main impetus of these essays was to affirm the validity of Christian scriptures in the face of Biblical criticism that had emerged in Germany and was beginning to be felt in England. These schools of criticism questioned the accounts of Biblical miracles based largely on reason and the scientific world view that had emerged in the Enlightenment. The Fundamentals were written as a defense against this “encroachment” of modernism. As such, these <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">writings</span></span> defended the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">inerrancy</span></span></span> of scripture, the virgin birth, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">substitutionary</span></span></span> atonement and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Infused into this concoction was a heavy dose of something that had been only <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">peripheral</span></span> in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Christan</span> dogma until that time. The Fundamentalists espoused <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">pre</span></span></span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">millennialism</span></span></span> or the belief that Jesus would be returning to earth to set up an earthly kingdom sooner rather than later. This <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">pre</span></span></span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">millennialism</span></span></span> held to a view that the world was on a dark path of increasing sin and degradation and would only be saved by the advent of Christ. This view was distinctly contrary to the entire history of Christianity in America (and indeed the most generally accepted doctrine of both Catholic an Protestant churches). Until this time, the dominant view had been post-millennial – the view that the world would, with the efforts of good Christian people – improve until it was worthy of Christ’s reign. </p><p>The post-millennial view had lead to deep commitments to social progress and reform. This <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">pre</span></span></span>-millennial view led, perhaps inevitably, to a very heavy dose of separatism. The leaders of the fundamentalism movement launched a two prong offensive against modernity. They attempted to fight it in the marketplace of ideas and they attempted to protect their flocks from its “dangers” by instituting a profound separation from secular society. The Scopes trial is perhaps the most famous initiative of the first effort. The social prohibitions (no dancing, no drinking, etc.) and imperatives to flee worldly pleasures was the most obvious manifestation of the second.<br />Early Fundamentalism was primarily a phenomenon of the south and of rural areas. The importance of this <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">rootedness</span></span></span> of Fundamentalism in rural, non-urban populations in Tidewater and Southern states cannot be overstated. Even today, the political divide in the United States is not between blue states and red states, but between rural America and urban America.<br /><br /><strong>The Advent of Billy Graham </strong><br /><br />In 1949, Billy Graham held revivalist tent meetings in Los Angeles and struck a chord. The movement he started has been called by some the Fourth Great Awakening. Graham was, at the time, a fundamentalist. He had grown up in a Tidewater state but lived in an urban area. His family had been liberal Christians, but he himself was converted by an evangelist named Mordecai Ham from Kentucky. Ham could trace his spiritual lineage from Fundamentalism back to the Second Great Awakening. Graham, who had been raised in Charlotte, North Carolina, was able to take the message of fundamentalism and shape it to be heard by a new audience. While Graham himself was intellectually a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">pre</span></span></span>-modern fundamentalist by religious confession, he was in every other important way a modernist. He understood corporate structures, was motivated by success and achievement (albeit for “God”) and was thoroughly comfortable with using the structures of the modern world for his ends. Unlike his fundamentalist forebears, he was not socially marginalized or inept. He proceeded to strip fundamentalism of its separatism, but retained the anti-intellectual and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">pietistic</span></span></span> aspects. He poured <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">pre</span></span></span>-modern mythic religion into modern <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">wineskins</span></span></span>. As was true of the Second Great Awaking, Graham’s message was highly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">quietist</span></span></span> – it spoke of personal salvation without a specific social agenda (except for vague patriotism and culturally inspired anti-communism). He borrowed much from the successful revivalist techniques but combined those with remarkable marketing and preaching skills. This combination managed to reach the growing hoards of post-war suburbia. </p><p>Thus a profound new force in American religious history came to the fore – the Evangelical – doctrinally conservative, highly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">pietistic</span></span></span>, non-separatist and, most importantly, politically <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">quietist</span></span></span>. This largely suburban movement from the 1950s to the early 1970s was markedly apolitical. It stressed personal piety and conversion. While undoubtedly conservative on the whole, it did not espouse an overt political <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">agenda</span>. At the core of this movement was a belief that “saving” people by initiating personal conversion was the only thing that ultimately mattered. This required that individuals be “in this world, but not of it” and there was therefore a sense that one participated in society in order to save individuals.<br /><br />And so in the 1960s, all major orthodox lineages in the United States could trace their roots to the First Great Awakening, but from there they fractured into four main streams: </p><ul><li>Politically active and socially assimilated liberal movements of<br />mainline churches found in urban and suburban areas, (having been influenced by the<br />Third Great Awakening and fundamentally modernist in their perspectives),</li><li>Politically marginalized, socially separatist, highly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">pietistic</span></span></span> fundamentalist churches found mostly in rural areas and in the deep south, (influenced by the Second Great Awakening and galvanized by the Fundamentalist Movement and deeply <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">pre</span></span></span>-modern in their perspectives),</li><li>Politically <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">quietist</span></span></span>, socially assimilated and personally <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">pietistic</span></span></span> suburban churches, (who were <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">pre</span></span></span>-modern in their beliefs but modern in most other ways), and </li><li>Politically liberal but socially oppressed and personally <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">pietistic</span></span></span> urban black churches (shaped mostly by oppression, but in part by the social gospel of the Third Great Awakening and the religious revivalism of the Second Great Awakening.) </li></ul><p><strong>The 1960s.</strong> </p><p>In the 1960s, post-modernism crashed into modernism and exploded in a way few cultural shifts have done in recent history. The importance of pluralism was reflected in the civil rights and feminist movements. The failures of capitalistic imperialism were reflected in opposition to the Vietnam War and the rise of the ecological movement. The culture wars were fully engaged. Those cultural <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">creatives</span></span></span> who embraced postmodernism moved to a progressive social agenda that admitted large scale change. Those who remained modernists were shell-shocked and huddled in suburbia (though suburbia ended up having its share of postmodernists as well). Those in rural America thought the modernists and postmodernists alike were at best crazy and at worst of the devil. </p><p><strong>The Rise of the Christian Right</strong> </p><p>The Moral Majority came to the fore in 1978 with the rise of Jerry Falwell. Falwell had started Thomas Road Baptist church in the 1950s and had grown that church over the succeeding decades. As part of his work, he did a radio broadcast entitled “Old Time Gospel Hour". At first, this radio show was distinctly fundamentalist. It preached a separatist message and focused on personal conversion and piety. It was distinctly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">pre</span></span></span>-millennial in its eschatology – emphasizing that the secular world would continue to deteriorate into sin until the eventual return of Christ. </p><p>However, Falwell was moving away from a purely fundamentalist perspective. (In the end, he renounced the term Fundamentalist and took on the label Evangelical). He was increasingly disquieted by the marginalization of fundamentalism and the separatism that spawned it. Seeing the tremendous evangelical inroads made into suburban American and also seeing a complete <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">absence</span> of political agenda, he realized that there was a tremendous vacuum in the movement Graham had inspired. (While himself politically conservative, Graham had assiduously avoided politicizing his movement – it was about saving individual souls be they white, black, Asian, American, Soviet, Republican or Democrat.) </p><p>From his fundamentalist roots in its original opposition to modernity and now post-modernity, Falwell saw the opportunity to capitalize on the religious faith of suburbia and fill the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">vacuum</span> that had been created. He went on to interject a fundamentalist <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">soco</span>-political agenda that was, at its heart, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">aggressively</span> anti-post modernist. It struck deeply at the relativistic moral value structures of post-modernity and pushed hard on the demographic that Billy Graham had created. However it scrupulously avoided offending modern sensibilities. ( This is reflected in Falwell's moving from "Old Time Gospel Hour" - a Fundamentalist title - to the "Moral Majority" - a distinctly modernist name.) This emergent created a new force in the religious landscape. </p><p>Suburban Christians, who had a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">pre</span></span></span>-modern religious belief, were personally <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">pietistic</span></span></span> and socially assimilated with a modern political ideology but strongly opposed to post-modern pluralism were vulnerable to this move. This group was primed for political action – and the agenda of the Fundamentalist stream became one of all out assault on the post-modernist advances of the 1960s with a few of the old fundamentalist attacks on modernity thrown in for good measure. This rise of essential fundamentalism stripped of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">separatism</span> and with a revived political mission provided the basis for the Christian Right. This movement has fed largely on the fact that suburbia sits pulled between the poles of urban and rural America and, because it holds the balance of political power between the two different world views held by those segments, it has had a profound impact on the partisan political balance of power. Falwell's understanding of this strategic importance made it his prime battleground against post-modernism.</p><p>It is this disproportionate influence coupled with the virulent anti-post-modernist agenda that concerns most <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">UUs</span></span>. If all of the suburban Christians simply believed in a mythic god and went quietly to their Bible studies on Wednesday night, we might write books on the virtues of atheism and the idiocy of faith, but we would not hate them so. However their fight against the post-modern political agenda is what raises our hackles and causes us deep concern. We are, to our bones, post-modernists and this assault threatens our most cherished beliefs.</p><p>It is interesting to note that the movement stands outside of the mainstream of the evangelical heritage in the United States. The Evangelicals of the First and Third Awakenings were profoundly progressive. These movements were rooted in urban movements that shaped the rise the liberalism in this country. What happened in the recent Culture War was a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">highjacking</span></span> of this tradition by a southern revivalist movement with its roots in Fundamentalism which played on the shock and fears generated by a post-modern worldview and the inability of many in suburban America to assimilate that perspective. The modernists in America, those living in the suburbs, retreated in the face of the onslaught of post-modernism and sought something to “conserve” their sense of the world. For some, they regressed to take on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">pre</span></span>-modern religious beliefs. Their fear and existential dread was exploited and turned into a virulent and aggressive anti-post-modern movement. This <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">highjack</span> of the Evangelical movement resulted in a huge confusion of the distinctions between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as they had emerged historically. Indeed the leaders who <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">coopted</span> the Evangelical movement intentionally conflated those movements in very unfortunate ways. As a result, the landscape today is confusing. In the "Evangelical" movement we now have: </p><ul><li>Rural fundamentalists (those who have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">pre</span>-modern beliefs, separate from the world and are not active politically) </li><li>Rural evangelicals (those who have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">pre</span>-modern beliefs, don’t separate from the world and are not politically engaged but are personally <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">pietistic</span>)</li><li>Suburban fundamentalists (those who have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">pre</span>-modern beliefs, seek not to live a lifestyle of modernity and are not active politically)</li><li>Suburban Evangelicals (those who have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">pre</span>-modern beliefs, live a modern lifestyle, tolerate post-modernity and are not active politically – think orthodox Presbyterians)</li><li>Suburban Evangelical-Fundamentalists (those who have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">pre</span>-modern beliefs, live a modern lifestyle, are actively opposed to post-modernity and are active politically – think anti-gay, anti-abortion, prayer in school charismatic and bible church types)</li><li>Urban Evangelicals (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">pre</span>-modern belief systems, personally <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">pietistic</span>, working on progressive political agendas – think black churches and groups like <a href="http://www.sojo.net/">Sojourners</a>) </li></ul><p>What leaps out from this is that conservative political activism <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">doesn</span>’t seem inexorably tied to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">pre</span>-modern belief systems. This strongly argues against the notion that it is the Christian belief structure that is motivating the conservative political activism. It is my contention that the Christian Right is more a function of sociological trends related to post-modern incursions on the social and belief structures of modernity than it is about religious ideology. Our "fight" is with one group of evangelicals - those who are Evangelical/<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Fundmentalists</span> - and our fight is not about religious belief systems but the clash of post-modernism with the popular culture.</p><p>This shifts the “battleground of ideas” from one of religious perspectives to one of sociological development. It is my hope that, as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">UUs</span>, as we come to understand the nuances of these various groups and the sociological forces in play, we will come to find more skillful means in addressing the real issues involved. Demonizing “evangelical Christians” paints the world with a very broad brush and causes us to miss the underlying dynamics of the forces at work. This makes us singularly ineffective. Indeed the spate of books that have come out in recent years decrying religious belief structures as the problem miss the point almost entirely. The problem is not one of intellectual belief but of the development of human consciousness as expressed in sociological development. The belief structures are a symptom or manifestation of this underlying issue of cultural development - not its cause. To think we can argue our way to sociological development by harranging people about their premodern belief systems makes about as much sense as harranging an 8th grader to do differential calculus. They simply aren't ready developmentally to hear it and will not hear it until they are. There are more skillful ways to address this although they don't allow for the same sense of self-righteousness. (This will be the subject of the second post.) </p><p>Interestingly, there is a growing movement of Suburban Progressive Evangelicals. This group has a pre-modern belief system, but a progressive social agenda involving stances that are anti-war, pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-feminism, but also pro-life. This group is being led by people who understand the great traditions of American progressive religious thought pioneered in the First and Third Great Awakenings. They are attempting to build bridges with modern society and not engage in the destructive culture wars of the past forty years. they are actually our natural allies in changing cultural values - provided we can graciously allow them to continue to hold to a premodern belief structure. This group is proving remarkably flexible in allying itself with postmodern feminists and envirnonmentals to achieve joint political aims. We risk marginalizing this emergent group if cannot develop the tolerance to give them the space to intellectually hold the beliefs they hold.<br /></p><p><br />___________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3775311567625346881#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> I am differentiating orthodox from liberal and heterodox. An orthodox Christian, roughly speaking, would be one who would subscribe to the literal truth of the Nicene Creed (a benchmark of orthodoxy for both the Catholic and Protestant churches). Those who don’t believe the literal truth of this creedal statement would either be liberal (seeing the creedal statement as metaphor, archetype or meaning making myth) or heterodox (not believing one or two specific creedal statements to be true but ascribing literal truth to the remaining statements.<br /><a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3775311567625346881#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> By pietistic I mean committing to a lifestyle of personal integrity in line with scriptural injunctions and engaging in a strong devotional practice.<br /><a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3775311567625346881#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> The post millennial and pre-millenial views are extremely important to this discussion. Post-mileniallists believe that the church’s mandate is to create a just and equitable society (the Kingdom of God) on earth that will be fit for Christ to reign over. Pre-millenialists believe that Christ must come back to set straight a world lost in increasing sin and depravity. The post-millenial view has been the historic orthodox doctrine of the Catholic and virtually all mainline Protestant churches. Contrary to many assumptions, the pre-millenial view was not a force in Christian theology until the early 20th Century. </p><p>© 2008. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</p>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-4905735994229046702008-03-06T00:35:00.000-08:002008-03-10T06:43:30.551-07:00Oprah and Eckart Tole<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXAclhQfR5mF0bYsIddtB0uOtQ6qIgUGNNc0ylL1pnJQaDRmNsER3NXYzHuKogwX6zCGuOekpWH-_-Jd4EXkcGpUrghp3_hbSJnFwnpVacy0r4cdU0fqrM-Tv4e7r6p93zNJ0SJCY6LRc/s1600-h/ShuHaRi.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5174550711213291058" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXAclhQfR5mF0bYsIddtB0uOtQ6qIgUGNNc0ylL1pnJQaDRmNsER3NXYzHuKogwX6zCGuOekpWH-_-Jd4EXkcGpUrghp3_hbSJnFwnpVacy0r4cdU0fqrM-Tv4e7r6p93zNJ0SJCY6LRc/s320/ShuHaRi.jpg" border="0" /></a>Oprah understands something that we in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UU</span> church have not yet recognized. She sees not only that millions of us are seeking spiritual truth, but that authentic spiritual experience is much deeper than the mantras of liberal religion can <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">accommodate</span>. Her discovery of <a href="http://www.eckharttolle.com/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Ekhart</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Tolle</span></a>, and her drawing millions of people to a <a href="http://www.oprah.com/obc_classic/webcast/archive/anewearth_archive_main.jsp"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">webcast</span></a> discussion of his book is news to which we as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">UUs</span> should be paying close attention.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Ekhart</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Tolle</span>’s book, <a href="http://eckharttolle.com/a_new_earth">A New Earth</a>, reflects the profound insight of a remarkable spiritual teacher. His own personal experience comes into deep context in the teachings of esoteric religion in any number of traditions. Many people confuse his work with the New Age. However, there are profound differences. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Tolle</span>’s work is unmistakably <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">transpersonal</span>. The New Age tends to devolve into the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">pre</span>-rational. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Tolle</span>’s work calls us to transcend <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">egoic</span> structures whereas the New Age invites us to wallow in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">narcissistic</span> impulses. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">transrational</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Tolle</span> speaks of is not irrational – it is consistent with reason, but recognizes that reason is a blunt instrument in truly understanding reality in its immediacy. Reason parses reality beautifully, but it cannot put it back together again. Reason objectifies reality to allow us to understand how it works, but in that objectification it deadens reality, separates us from our own true nature and becomes the cause of our fundamental alienation. Post-modernism is the end result of that rational enterprise – millions upon millions of data points with no wisdom; understanding everyone’s perspective, but endless nihilism. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Pre</span>-rationalism or romanticism (the old Romantics are the new New <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Agers</span>) collapses into moment by moment waves of emotion and impulse. It is a reversion, not an advancement, in human consciousness.1<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Tolle</span>, and the teachers before him, point to a way out.<br /><br />What is profound about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Tolle</span>’s work is his ability to allow us to glimpse that place of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">transrational</span> – not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">denying</span> reason but moving beyond it to where we see the whole again, but from a place that is not pushed around solely by emotions and impulses. It transcends reason without descending to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">pre</span>-rational states of consciousness. This is the place sages from Buddha, to Jesus, to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Plotinus</span>, to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Nagarjuna</span>, to Sankara, to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Ramana</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Marharshi</span> and hosts of other have gone and have pointed to. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Eckart</span>’s work is not new – it is the perennial philosophy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">re-framed</span> for a modern audience. It is the awareness of our Ground of Being – of Awareness itself – <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">choiceless</span>, unmoved, ever present, always and ever existing, our own true Self.<br /><br />What was interesting for me in watching <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Tolle</span> and Oprah was the radical difference in their structures of consciousness. Oprah’s language and approach represented the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">multiplistic</span> pluralism of liberal free-thinking religion. For us <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">UUs</span> we would have seen nothing new in her articulations and even though she identifies as a Christian, it is as a free thinking Christian that we would find wholly unobjectionable. Her belief structures were evident in the way she discussed Christianity and world religions. We should cheer that such a powerful figure is introducing open-mindedness to those Christians who are unsettled about their faith and seeking their own next stage of development. She can speak to them in ways that we cannot whether we be humanist or post-modern pluralist.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Tolle</span> speaks from a different place. He made categorical statements (just as Oprah did) but did so from a set of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">transpersonal</span> experiences that Oprah, by her own admission, is only beginning to glimpse. Indeed, the reason Oprah has been so taken with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Tolle</span>’s work is precisely because he taps not into a belief structure but into an experience of wholeness that liberal religion simply cannot deliver. We are watching Oprah move from one stage of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">consciousness</span> to the next before our eyes and it is fascinating to see someone who has one foot in each world. The structures of consciousness that produce the doctrines of liberal religion (all paths lead to the same place, Jesus and Buddha were teaching the same truths, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">yada</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">yada</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">yada</span>), is at least two developmental steps short of deeper realization of the dissolution of the self in the discovery of the Self. Indeed, if you listen closely to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Tolle</span>, he <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">doesn</span>’t say that these religions’ leaders “taught” the same thing – their content varies dramatically – but rather that they experienced something similar (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">sahaj</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">samadhi</span>, the kingdom of God) and that they attempted to transmit these experiences to those around them. There are “jewels” of insight in the sacred writings that point to the ultimately ineffable experience. They communicated in the cultural language of their times and so the teachings are different, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">exoteric</span> religion is distinguishable, but the underlying mystical experiences, the esoteric religion, are profoundly similar.<br /><br />What is interesting about most people who follow <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Tolle</span>’s teaching is that they feel good for a time, but they get caught back up in their lives and the feeling state they experienced passes. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Tolle</span> inspires momentary experiences of living in the now. The systematic dismantling of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">egoic</span> structures that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Eckart</span> talks about is often painful and difficult work. In his case, he came to his awakened state only after years of despair and near suicide. His experience, as is the case with some, immediately rested in semi-permanent state. For most, these states begin as incidents or episodes but must be nurtured through spiritual exercises in community. Rarely does one progress on the spiritual path without a proven practice rooted in a wisdom tradition. And rarely does one progress on the spiritual path alone.<br /><br />As a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">UU</span>, I find liberal religion (as an ideology) is radically differentiated from the fundamental experience of enlightenment that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Tolle</span> experienced and teaches about. It is this deeper, more authentic teaching that we miss in our churches. And by authentic, I mean time-tested and profoundly proven approaches to spiritual experience. (I will write more about this in the next few posts.)<br /><br />This fascination with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">Tolle</span> will pass - it is a fad just like all of the other fads before it. Last year it was "The Secret", this year it is "A New Earth" and next year the pluralistic consciousness, which has <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">difficulty</span> putting down roots in any one place for long, will move on. However, for some, for a few, this will stick <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">because</span> it is rooted in a profoundly human experience. It is rooted humanity's experience of Consciousness itself. Those in our <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">UU</span> tradition who have practices in Zen or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Kasmir</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Shaivism</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Dzogchen</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Advaita</span> Vedanta, or contemplative prayer, or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">sufi</span> whirling or any one of a host of other spiritual traditions and practices, get this stuff. If we are there to support those for whom this brings a shift...if we continue to work with this process with people who are seeking this depth, and if those of us who are living the lives of ordinary mystics are there to help, then good things will happen. The trick will be to use <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">upaya</span> (skillful means) to help people find deep spiritual paths that suit their sensibilities and stages of development. As more and more <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">UUs</span> get well and truly turned on to this work – and see it pass from the shallow grid of new age pluralism to the sacred work of grounded traditions– it will be useful for us to stand by and try to catch the attention of those who want to move from having occasional state experiences of transcendence or glimpses of meaning to living lives that rest more or less permanently in the Ever Present. If we are able to do that, we can change the world.<br /><br />________________________<br /><br />1. In one of my first posts I suggested that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">UU</span> church should be paying attention to those who identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious”. I mentioned that there are those who are rational but spiritual. This post is designed to clarify and explicate some of these distinctions as well as place what I see as this most interesting cultural event of the media <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">phenome</span> and the transperonal <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">pandit</span> sitting down to talk about the fundamental nature of reality, human consciousness, and lasting transformation.<br /><br />© 2008. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-16558185608252548022008-03-05T00:12:00.001-08:002008-03-05T00:12:43.104-08:00Oprah gets it....why don't we? More to come.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-31304830236331132622008-03-02T17:53:00.000-08:002008-03-10T06:43:56.701-07:00Reflections on the District Annual General Meeting<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6CMauIuqPl5c6Ow2UcAoYaFfzpi_uXBMzCSmmlrPM15OLsQ4NjqUbsLnNvpikvEVjHcx4Upr2iMLFecsLdnzB4IQPd-Val3xd84W39Gqf4YkfD-L4xbiWZBoRnVg4RFuYfhmMAv0d1eo/s1600-h/candle.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5173336287452576866" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6CMauIuqPl5c6Ow2UcAoYaFfzpi_uXBMzCSmmlrPM15OLsQ4NjqUbsLnNvpikvEVjHcx4Upr2iMLFecsLdnzB4IQPd-Val3xd84W39Gqf4YkfD-L4xbiWZBoRnVg4RFuYfhmMAv0d1eo/s200/candle.jpg" border="0" /></a>I just returned from our annual district meeting. I was privileged to speak at a workshop entitled “Bullfrogs in Wheelbarrows: Planning Along the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Chaordic</span> Path.” The workshop addressed a number of the issues discussed in a <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/bullfrogs-in-wheelbarrows.html">series of entries </a>in this blog last summer regarding church growth and development, with an added overlay of the Spiral Dynamics model. What surprised and delighted me was how many in the audience were clearly ready for something like this. They seemed a bit tired of one-dimensional models of church leadership and are truly interested in understanding church life as a system. I had expected a chillier reception because I was speaking some hard “truths” to people I had assumed were not systemic thinkers. I don’t know if the maps I was able to present are the best around – but they <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">aren</span>’t too bad and they seemed to make some sense. Many seemed to be happy just to hear someone speaking candidly about difficulties in church life and putting them into a broader context. Too often the “solutions” that are offered are mere techniques and do not address the complexity of the church as a living organism.<br /><br />At the same time I had the opportunity to hear and get to know some other people. While the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">UU</span> movement as a whole is still mired in fundamentally dead-end notions of political liberalism and a self-congratulatory notion of political righteousness, there are signs of progress. I do believe deeply in liberation theology, but that liberation must be rooted in personal spiritual transformation if it is to be authentic. Gandhi and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">MLK</span> both understood this, as have others from our past. Political action without piety devolves into anger and bitterness and violence. If we are not working on our own liberation – and working at it assiduously – how can we have the moral or personal integrity to be prophetic voices in the world? ‘<br /><br />A few weeks ago I had reason to ponder anew Gandhi’s notion of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">himsa</span> (violence) - that simply by being alive, we contribute to the violence of the world. We are all complicit. That can paralyze us or it can motivate us to develop greater awareness and intentionality. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Ahimsa</span> (nonviolence) is an impossible ideal and Gandhi goes so far as to say that in a war there is no appreciable difference between the soldier who kills and the medic who binds up the wounds (he drove an ambulance for a brief time in the Boer War and his reflections are clearly based on that experience). What Gandhi seems to be saying is similar to one of the central messages of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Bhagavad</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Gita</span> where Krisha tells Arjuna that he must remember the divine and do his duty, which in that case involved initiating a battle in which many of his kinsmen would die. We cannot truly make the world a better place unless we ourselves are seeking liberation form the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">egoic</span> self that is the source of so much suffering. In the end it is about awareness of our actions (which will decrease our net contribution to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">himsa</span> if we are paying attention) and taking responsibility for our complicity in the whole. Failure to recognize this complicity inevitably results in self-righteousness and arrogance which ultimately is a pretty sure path to outward and explicit violence towards others. If the ambulance driver thinks he is morally superior to the soldier, all is lost and the spiral of violence deepens.1<br /><br />Back to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">AGM</span> – I was also struck, and positively so, by an increased focus on spiritual practice. There were workshops on it, there was discussion about it. The workshop I attended was basic but quite good. Sparking and feeding interest in this is wonderful. All of this seems positive. So much of what we need to do in this church is transcend the notion of materialism. We, as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">UUs</span>, are still fundamentally post-Enlightenment, post-modern materialists – we cannot bring ourselves to believe that our soul or even our mind reflects a dimension other than mere physicality. Until we admit to the authentic reality of Spirit, it seems we are likely to continue to wander in the wilderness. I am seeing a few <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">UUs</span> (mostly ministers) beginning to get this. For more on this notion, click <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/08/whither-unitarian-universalism.html">here</a>.<br /><br />These discussions about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">UU</span> spirituality remain in the realm of what Ken <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Wilber</span> would call “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">translative</span> practices” or spiritual practices that focus on adjustments to ordinary life and which don’t <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">fundamentally</span> challenge current structures of consciousness. (And that is true of the course on building a spiritual practice that I am co-leading in our church as well.) In contrast to the notion of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">translative</span> practice, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Wilber</span> claims, and I think he is right, that all of the great wisdom traditions demand a form of "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">transformative</span> practice" and by that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Wilber</span> means that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">egoic</span> structures are systematically and wholly dismantled in the face of development towards divine consciousness. (Wilber affrirms the validity and importance of both of these types of practice - but suggests that we should not confuse the two.) While all sorts of goals of spiritual practice exist (reducing stress, connecting with the body, becoming more mindful, etc.), the whole point in virtually every tradition when you follow it out to where it is heading is the mystic experience of the destruction of egoic self-contraction in the presence of the Ultimate (the destruction of self in realizing Self). We have a very, very long ways to go – and our complacency at our level of structural development of consciousness continues to be our own worst enemy.<br /><br />The only sour note for me was Dr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Rebecca</span> Parker’s keynote address. I found it sadly disappointing and even troubling. She is undoubtedly a wonderful person and may have a deep and rich spiritual life, but it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">didn</span>’t come through. Her talk was a rousing cry for caring for the world, but it was without depth or any genuine compassion – it was laced with latent anger and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">vitriol</span> with a heavy handed overlay of the rhetoric of oppression, which in this day and age simply sounds shrill and unskilled The realities she points to are painfully real and beyond worthy of our compassion and zealous activism. The shame of it is that the ways she addressed it are alienating and singularly ineffective for this time. For me, it seemed the same message from the progressive left that I have heard since listening to Jerry Rubin and Angela Davis but wrapped in a veneer of postmodern religiosity. How often do we have to replay the rhetoric of the 1960s New Left. Flatland yet again. C’est <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">domage</span>.<br /><p>More concerning to me was the dehumanization of the evangelical Christians and other “oppressors”. They were the enemy in Dr. Parker's talk. It smacked of cheap pandering - bash the Christians and bash the Republicans and you bring a group of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">UUs</span> to their feet in applause. The problem with this type of self-righteousness is that eventually degrades into bitterness, nihilism and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">performative</span> self-contradiction.<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28"> Dr. </span>Parker's <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">speech</span> left me wondering if she wouldn't just rather wipe the evangelical Christians from the face of the planet, or at least their leaders. I could take no joy in these "us v. them" characterizations of first tier thinking and the standing ovation for a talk with the level of animosity reflected towards those groups truly saddened me. It is liberal fundamentalism at its worst. Until we have the wisdom of Pogo (“We have met the enemy and he is us.”) we have no hope of bringing any real transformation either on a personal level or to our culture. In fairness, Dr. Parker may believe that as well, but it just did not come through in her talk. </p><p>The self-congratulatory new progressive rhetoric is so strong in our churches but the actions are so anemic and inconsistent (we play at engaging in a costless form of social justice often designed it seems to salve our liberal guilt) and it seems to me to stem from the fact that we have no stomach for genuine liberation. That type of liberation demands that we die to our self (our <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">egoic</span> sense of who we are) and that we find God (our true Self existing before we were born). Once that happens, life cannot be a tepid thing and if we then decide to engage, we engage wholeheartedly and because of calling that is rooted in the timeless now and the Ground of all Being. We show up, we don't flit through. </p><br /><p>Perhaps I am being too hard on good folks who are doing the best they can, but, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">doggoneit</span>, I am tired of pretense and lack of any real "there there" and I think my fellow <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">UUs</span> are feeling the same. We need better stuff from the president of our seminary which is turning out people to work with us in our <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">congregations</span>. We <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">UUs</span> are as trapped in our culture as any and the thing we long for is genuine liberation - we seek the meaning of our lives and much of that meaning can be found in service to others, but not without spiritual depth. Reductionist materialism (as a rock bottom philosophy of life) ain't going to get us there - it won't even get us out the door. A political agenda based on reductionist materialism is a dead end - why liberate the huddled masses if all they are is just a slab of meat with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">neuropetides</span>? Until we recognize either that evolution is taking us collectively towards divinity and that glowing embers of that divinity are in us (a la Whitehead, Chardin, and the German <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Idealisists</span>) or we believe that involution has brought divinity deep into our our material existence and into our humanness (a la <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Plotinus</span>, Eckhardt, Sankara and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Nagarjuna</span>), or both (a la <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Aurobindo</span>), we might as well go back to watching TV.<br /></p><br /><div>1. This is not to deny concepts of moral development - there are higher and lower stages of moral development. It is only to disparage the notion that morality can be used as another form of oppressive heirarchy. The moral high ground does not permit you to dehumanize those who are developing to your level. </div><div> </div><div>© 2008. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</div>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-58598496782126510692007-11-25T22:30:00.000-08:002007-12-17T18:43:13.716-08:00In Over Our Heads: Robert Kegan and Spiritual Development<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQoWsNJ3budMUwGU0MipGtzu3ByyiteKNqMEeOtPAcGtLeafi72NsNVZHoxor51tXISZg-Ly8mDn2UFDif9cNzQQ9HfSypHzXaZd-S8SRoLRzRT-5V7thbiafqwVFetxFmuSlEysPCC-k/s1600-h/SubtleFire.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5137034845545723042" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQoWsNJ3budMUwGU0MipGtzu3ByyiteKNqMEeOtPAcGtLeafi72NsNVZHoxor51tXISZg-Ly8mDn2UFDif9cNzQQ9HfSypHzXaZd-S8SRoLRzRT-5V7thbiafqwVFetxFmuSlEysPCC-k/s200/SubtleFire.jpg" border="0" /></a>Dr. Robert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Kegan</span>, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Meehan</span> Professor of Adult Learning and Professional Development at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is a developmental psychologist interested in stages the development of adult structures of consciousness. He has identified six distinct stages. Three of these are important to any discussion of higher spiritual development. The stages of development reflect the ways in which people interpret their experience and construct the meaning of the experiences.<br /><br />We pick up with the cognitive development of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">pre</span>-teens. Typically just before adolescence, children have mastered what Piaget <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">referred</span> to as concrete operational thinking. They are able to identify specific instances of wide ranges of things (what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Kegan</span> refers to as the ability to recognize “durable categories”). They understand their roles and they tend to recognize enduring needs and have developed impulse control. This is all reflective of second order consciousness.<br /><br />As people move into third order consciousness, they become able to think abstractly and recognize and intelligently interact with cross-categorical ideas. They are able to create maps of their ideas of how life should be lived and begin to conform their behavior to these maps. A large part of this process involves the socialization to adult structures necessary to get along in our culture. We become who our society expects us to be by interacting within the structures of that society. People begin to understand interpersonal realities, can identify their own inner states and recognize inter-subjective states of other people and groups. These skills allow people to function in the modern society and are essential to holding a job, parenting, partnering and simply getting along in life. According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Kegan</span>, the vast majority of adults in American society function at this level of consciousness.<br /><br />There are however, two orders that transcend and include these lower structures. The Fourth Order of Consciousness involves the ability to think in high level abstractions about the abstractions one has created in the Third Order. In our post-modern world, there is not one monolithic society – we are exposed to a wide range of possibilities and competing demands for time, money, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">loyalty</span>, focus and so on. If these rise to a sufficiently complex level and we are paying attention, we make the leap to Fourth Order Consciousness. We are no longer pushed around by cultural forces but become “self-authoring”. Very few people reach this stage before the age of 40. When they do, they are no longer subject to the scripts of abstraction that they developed earlier in life but are able to chose between multiple abstractions and chose to operate out of meta-ethical frameworks. They are no longer bound by maps of behavior but have become autonomous individuals who are consciously picking and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">choosing</span> the cognitive structures that they chose to operate within. They are rarely ideologically dogmatic and find they can adopt great plasticity in the ways they function and move within the world and various social groups. They are marching to their own drummer based on their own cognitive map of the world.<br /><br />The Fifth Order of Consciousness starts getting very interesting from the point of view of spiritual development. According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Kegan</span>, only a small fraction of people ever make this jump. This stage is referred to as the “self-transforming self”. It is brought on by the inherent limitations of self-authoring by coming face to face with the inconsistencies of created by the systems developed at the Fourth Order. The person recognizes that all of the ways of constructing meaning or making sense of experience are, in the end, wholly partial and incomplete. They leave things out. Their system, while very holistic and encompassing, is incapable of making any fundamental sense of their lives. The hallmark of this phase would be things like the "existential crisis" or the "dark night of the soul". This profound doubt - and sometimes downright ontological and epistemological despair - forces the self to move into dialectical transcendence of ideologies to the point where there is no longer an ego to support or defend. Reality becomes perceived as truly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">transpersonal</span> and the notion of individuality looses any sense of ultimate meaning. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">egoic</span> self clearly still exists, but it exists solely as an object of observation. When this happens, life is seen holistically and what maps are useful are maps that tie disparate realities together and show the relationships between things that, on their surface appear contradictory.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Kegan</span> has used Alan Watts’ comment that his baby was fully enlightened because he was one with his experience as a foil for discussing this stage. He says Watts got it absolutely wrong. According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Kegan</span>, a baby is, developmentally, pure subject – the baby no distinct sense of distinct self as object of observation or experience. In all other stages, a portion of the self (from the lower order of consciousness) is seen as an object by the subject of the next stage. (Thus the Fourth Order clearly sees and understands the structures at work in the 3rd order but is oblivious to those structures of its present order – i.e. they are purely subjective). At the Fifth Order (and above), the individual becomes pure object – unlike the baby, there is no “subject”. This fundamental recognition of the contingency of self – its fundamentally illusory nature – is awfully close to the mystic realizations found in many world religions. It is not that self no longer exists but rather than self is pure object of a transcendent witness. This type of experience is deeply reminiscent of experiences spoken of by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Sri</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Aurobindo</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Ramana</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Maharshi</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Nagarjuna</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Meister</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Eckhart</span>, and hundreds of other saints and sages from times past.<br /><br />To my way of thinking, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Kegan</span>’s work points to the a human developmental model that both supports and gives structure to spiritual development. It provides a teleological understanding of the development of human psychology and grounds mystical experience in psychological development. That grounding is important in a number of ways, particularly people seek to live spiritual lives in a post modern world.<br /><br />For those who are interested, two of Robert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Kegan</span>’s works are <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Over-Our-Heads-Mental-Demands/dp/0674445880/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196058440&sr=8-1">In Over Our Heads</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolving-Self-Problem-Process-Development/dp/0674272315/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196058440&sr=8-2">The Evolving Self</a>.<br /><br /><div>© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</div><br /><div></div>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-79796918338959551852007-11-02T15:27:00.000-07:002008-03-10T06:42:20.231-07:00Meditations<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkJ4siQnFVw6mMKYoQ3J5TXYAbAPKyby44Gvqso78LltAhoeYVPx9_TkrSpNCK__Fya5YV0mOH-aSpbdkGSf8jRwwIfxFtic_eJYb840jFVCGT3Cp7PWaaXwxUg11or5IFT5v48XZbWcE/s1600-h/3_V.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128761844442519650" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="230" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkJ4siQnFVw6mMKYoQ3J5TXYAbAPKyby44Gvqso78LltAhoeYVPx9_TkrSpNCK__Fya5YV0mOH-aSpbdkGSf8jRwwIfxFtic_eJYb840jFVCGT3Cp7PWaaXwxUg11or5IFT5v48XZbWcE/s200/3_V.jpg" width="188" border="0" /></a> Here are a few meditations that I have found particularly useful:<br /><br />1. Who am I?<br /><br />Look into yourself and peel away everything that is not "you". Start with your waking life. You almost certainly peel off your roles, your possessions, your mannerisms, your emotions, your thinking. Dismiss anything that is not "you" at the deepest level. When you are ready, move into examining who the "I" is who is dreaming and how that is different from your waking self. Finally, think about deep, dreamless sleep - is there an "I" there and, if so what form does that "I" take. Was there an "I" while you were in deep, dreamless sleep. If so, what was its nature?<br /><br />2. What am I?<br /><br />Think of the vast distance bewtween the nucleus of an atom and the first electron (I have heard that if the nucleus was the size of a ping-pong ball, the first electron shell woudl be 8 miles away). In that space is a quantum field of nothingness giving rise to pairs of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence. Now think of these vast spaces of emptiness/fullness within your own body - to what extent is there an inside of you and and outside of you? Where do "you" begin and end? Are you as "solid" as you think you are? Where do "you" physically begin and end?<br /><br />3. When is my self in time?<br /><br />Where does the past exist? Where does the future exist? What exists other than the present moment? If only the present moment exists, what does that do to your sense of self? How is your self different from the present moment?<br /><br />4. Where is my self?<br /><br />Be still and identify where in your body your sense of self abides. (For many Westerners, it is immediately behind the eyes, for most of the rest of us, it is in their heart.) In your mind's eye, move that sense of self to another part of your body (say your heart) and then back to where it came from. Next begin to expand the sense of self until it fills your entire body - allow it to inhabit, fully, your full physical frame. If possible, in your mind's eye extend your sense of self out of your body and begin to explore how far this goes.<br /><br />5. The Still Lake<br /><br />This is not, necessarily, a transcendental exercise but it is useful. Lie down and relax. If you have calming music with headphones you can listen to that (I used Pachabel's Canon). Create a lake in your mind's eye, notice if it is calm or filled with waves. Imagine those waves generally reflect the activity of your mind (worry, thoughts, joys, concerns and so on). As you listen to the music, slowly calm "your" lake to the point that it refelcts the sky perfectly - not a ripple on it. Repeat this daily.<br /><br /><div align="left">6. Big Mind<br /><br />Do Genpo Roshi's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT9y1YEUjy0">Big Mind </a>meditation on You Tube - start at the beginning and watch all of them. Then start doing this on your own or with a partner.<br /></div><div align="left"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong>What meditations have you found useful?</strong></div><div align="left"><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</div>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-23241937783755024912007-11-01T23:18:00.000-07:002007-11-03T16:47:32.899-07:00What are We Missing?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcgxPt-1sbXVc2nj7ZaiqhivyYWr2rREVyw63yxiO6Qkw7tj0aIZL1df5WOv6okug30tTI_KytNlasQCiJ-_U0WCbaUMl-DlbdrLMpjpUhCHL26gWhz1okpbfqPAYjsqDoV1pZ1dktS5Y/s1600-h/nocturnesaunter.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128124144878278738" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcgxPt-1sbXVc2nj7ZaiqhivyYWr2rREVyw63yxiO6Qkw7tj0aIZL1df5WOv6okug30tTI_KytNlasQCiJ-_U0WCbaUMl-DlbdrLMpjpUhCHL26gWhz1okpbfqPAYjsqDoV1pZ1dktS5Y/s200/nocturnesaunter.gif" border="0" /></a>As we reflect on the spiritual marketplace in our modern, secularized world, there is no question that something is afoot. This week in Seattle an innovative trust and financial management company that serves families of extreme wealth rented the symphony hall to have alternative medicine expert Andrew <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Weil</span> speak to its customers, potential customers, and their <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">advisors</span> on aging in one of its “Thought Forums”. Andrew <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Weil</span> wasn't always so mainstream. In 1971 he first visited <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Esalen</span> where he participated in then cutting edge seminars on health and human consciousness. His efforts and the efforts of other physicians and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">healthcare</span> professionals and researchers who largely gathered under the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">initial</span> aegis and leadership of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Esalen</span> brought alternative medicine to the United States and within a few short decades turned it into what is now referred to respectfully as "complimentary medicine."<br /><br />The stuff that was on the very outer fringes of cultural acceptability only recently is becoming mainstream in some very important ways. Yet we as Unitarian <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Universalists</span> are missing this cultural sea-change and dooming ourselves to fundamental and, I suspect, quite permanent, irrelevance. We sit back and dismiss these movements out of hand – this hunger people have for something of significance that feeds their souls. We see it as somehow too “woo-woo” or “New Age”. Yet in our complacency, the world is passing us by very, very quickly. The folks who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious”, some of whom are referred to as <a href="http://www.culturalcreatives.org/questionnaire.html">Cultural <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Creatives</span></a>, constitute approximately 20% of our population and probably reflect an even larger percentage of the demographic in more hip, urban and liberal areas where many of our churches exist. <p class="MsoNormal">As sophisticated <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">UUs</span>, I have heard us scoff at those who race after chimeric “spiritual” fixes – like <u>The Celestine Prophecy</u> or <u>The Secret</u> or “What the Bleep Do We Know” – and yet people who are seeking comfort in these things, and other ideas that are even stranger, have a deep human longing to become more whole and more loving people whose lives are rooted in something deeper than the shallow materialism of our age. This “pop” spirituality speaks of something much more profound - a human tropism towards the spiritual. It speaks of something that is emerging in our culture that has profoundly ancient antecedents. It runs so deep that it might even be irreducibly embedded in structures of human consciousness or even the fabric of the universe itself. The problem is that these popular forms of spiritual expression are ill-formed, lack depth, and are concocted out of ideas that seem to us rational folk to be patently foolish, confused and magical. In short, a throw-back to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">pre</span>-rational superstition. </p><p class="MsoNormal">And many of them are. And yet…</p>While this frothy spirituality oftentimes denies and condemns the deeper wisdom traditions, their ideas are the distant and sometimes barely recognizable relatives of the much deeper truths found in perennial philosophies and the paths of mystics in Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu traditions, among others. While the airy ideas of these facile trends lack depth and discipline, they can serve as gateways for literally millions of people to possibilities of real spiritual depth and profound experience. In talking with many UUs, the story is the same. Plenty of visitors, but few stick. Could part of the reason be because we are so very close to what they are looking for on paper, but fall short of embodying that promise in action, particularly with respect to spirituality?<br /><br />As a faith that ostensibly draws on these well-grounded and respected traditions, we as Unitarian <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Universalists</span> have the opportunity to deeply explore and live these truths and thereby offer to the world a path of depth, integrity and real meaning. But this way requires that we take our spiritual calling as seriously as we take our political one. It requires that we truly acknowledge the sources, not just with affirmation, but with incarnation. It requires discipline and study and devotion to spiritual practice.<br /><br /><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>Our denomination runs the risk of being swept into irrelevance. It continues to shrink in most appreciable ways and it is rapidly aging. We live in deadened humanism and narrow definitions of liberal political orthodoxy that have already been dismissed by our culture as fundamentally irrelevant. At this point, we have no voice that is resonating with those around us. Yet in our Sources we have latent depth and profound messages that, if taken seriously and coupled with spiritual practice, can not only revitalize our congregations but drive a new message of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">relevant</span> political and social transformation.<br /><br />Many leaders of cultural thinking point to emerging structures of consciousness that profoundly integrate the spiritual, the psychological, the intellectual and the ethical dimensions of life in ways that shape the soul. While this emerging consciousness is clearly not a panacea, and will raise its own problems, we are on the cusp of a revolution in the way ordinary people construct the meaning of their lives. It would be a shame to sit on the sidelines and only watch when we have the very real potential of dynamically participating in the emergence of a new order of human consciousness.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-25719024912060731512007-10-28T17:37:00.000-07:002007-11-03T16:43:50.546-07:00Ths I Believe - My Ethics<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJmciYyiTP8qOo6qa1UBJ4N3JqZf6w6RQmZsMVD3c7DbDEKQjpzK-wq2_zmjH-4VxasWjzw8X-ydF9ucBpROuPhOmCxO3aiGvSqgpNcZGu6MfUj0SojFffDfgagVhH3aBeBHqoDtPZ_Qo/s1600-h/Fractal+spiral.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5126554261317146690" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJmciYyiTP8qOo6qa1UBJ4N3JqZf6w6RQmZsMVD3c7DbDEKQjpzK-wq2_zmjH-4VxasWjzw8X-ydF9ucBpROuPhOmCxO3aiGvSqgpNcZGu6MfUj0SojFffDfgagVhH3aBeBHqoDtPZ_Qo/s200/Fractal+spiral.jpg" border="0" /></a> I believe that the universe, while having a natural order, has no inherent moral order. I believe that human nature can be seen as good or evil with ample evidence for either doctrine. I believe that there is no first principle that can be known, no God we can prove, no Platonic absolute forms which inform our soul or our ethics. We are, in one sense, alone in the universe - left adrift and without guidance. In the end, I believe that the soul of the universe is essentially amoral in any sort of human sense.<br /><br />So in the end, without guidance, there is only existential choice...there is only the Sisyphean task of creating the meaning of our lives. Consequently, I believe that the dignity of human consciousness derives from our continued perseverance in endeavors for which the universe affords no foothold of encouragement. As human beings, our fundamental nature is to aspire - to create meaning where none exists apart from our efforts. These acts of aspiration are essential to our humanity.<br /><br />We chose to take a moral stand when there is no reason given by the universe for us to do so.<br />By my very existence, I have no choice but to plant a stake in the ground - that is predestined from the moment I was born. But what is not predestined is my choice as to where to plant that stake. We all chose a morality that is not required of us and so, in the end, our moral self is an expression of our aspiration - built on the slenderest of threads.<br /><br />Because I must plant my stake, I chose to believe certain things...not because I can prove them but because I aspire for them to be true. I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings. There is no compelling evidence to prove that my belief is rational. Just so, neither is there evidence to refute it. And if I chose to believe that all human life has value, then justice, equity and compassion become my watchwords and the values I aspire to live by. Because I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of human life, I also believe in the importance of community for the future of humanity. Salvation lies not solely in individual experience, but in the experience of the community B in the connections of human beings to one another and to the universe as a whole. All people are islands; while they are born from another, they die alone. Yet in community we breach the isolation of personal existence and have the opportunity to discover the inherent worth and dignity of the other. In this is love.<br /><br />I believe that each person is responsible for finding truth and meaning, yet I believe that we have much to learn from those who have come before and those who we journey with today. Wise teachers -- Siddhartha Gautama, Hillel, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao-Tsu, Gandhi and others -- have all aspired, and by their aspirations, inform and inspire me. In this is hope.<br /><br />I believe in the interconnected web of all existence of which we are a part. Morality does not exist. Yet we aspire to morality and in the human quest we aspire to give evidence to the divine we cannot prove in that mystery of the web of life. Here lies faith.<br /><br />Finally, I believe that the universe is evolving and that we are at the tip of that process with respect to consciousness on our planet. While the universe is impersonal and fundamentally amoral, there is a development of ever increasing levels of complexity that are drawing humanity to deeper and more complex levels of consciousness. Along with those structures of consciousness there evolves increasing dimensions of care and concern. These dimensions are not moral imperatives in any classical sense, but rather are the epiphenomena of the very nature of human consciousness and he cultural structures it creates. Thus, while the universe offers no foothold of encouragement in our decision to act with deeper compassion, it is drawing humanity in that direction. This increase in the capacity for understanding, holding, being present to and loving the emergence is, it seems, close to the heart of humanity’s evolutionary imperative.<br /><br />Faith, hope and love abide, but the greatest of these is love for it is in love that our aspirations become flesh.<br /><br />I believe in these ethics, this morality, not by reason, but because in aspiring to them, I become part of the realization of that greater human endeavor. And in that sense we are not alone in the universe. I chose these ethics because of that distant human dream, that by our consciousness, we make a tiny corner of the universe a moral place after all and in that space god becomes real.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-78875038911340804012007-10-20T11:05:00.000-07:002007-11-03T16:44:15.001-07:00This I Believe - My Metaphysics“The Tao that can be differentiated is not the Tao” – <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Lau</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Tzu</span><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdhS_EkkMArO8BqVnguDSJvQ7NM7_ayHvAUnpJzCEJ50QlQ8VcS9lPYKiuKQA-xE12c305_Ki9KDlV5eaT9wgwprW0wgJx2_l_iWXp4s699hKLqu_EjsV9ZsTBkstrON-aC7azUp50e7k/s1600-h/Fractal9.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5123486780092713842" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 396px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 241px" height="163" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdhS_EkkMArO8BqVnguDSJvQ7NM7_ayHvAUnpJzCEJ50QlQ8VcS9lPYKiuKQA-xE12c305_Ki9KDlV5eaT9wgwprW0wgJx2_l_iWXp4s699hKLqu_EjsV9ZsTBkstrON-aC7azUp50e7k/s200/Fractal9.jpg" width="245" border="0" /></a>The existence of God has radical implications for any metaphysical system, and so, it seems, a fundamental question any <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">metaphysics</span> must answer early on is the question of the existence of God.<br /><br />The sages, philosophers and great traditions agree that any conception of God worthy of serious religious or scientific consideration requires that God not be bound by concepts of time or space. Thus, God cannot exist as a finite reality in the same way as a table or a chair or even a human exists. As we explore the term “existence”, we understand and use it in common and philosophic discourse, as fundamentally an Aristotelian attribute of a thing – something either exists in space and time or it does not. Yet to be true to the most nuanced conceptions of God that humanity has formulated to date, God must be beyond space, beyond time, beyond mere matter, beyond energy. God is therefore no thing in this space-time Universe. Being nothing, by definition, God does not exist. As <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Lau</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Tzu</span> suggested, the Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao. This quality of nothingness is essentially non-dual for it if was dual, it would be something in opposition to what it is not.<br /><br />Ironically, Eastern and Western religious mythic traditions and recent scientific cosmology all suggest that all that is (Being) arises out of nothing. God as Nothing – in absolute non-dual non-existence, becomes the ground or field giving rise to Being and consequently space-time. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Beingness</span> that arises from this nothing apparently quickly differentiates itself into Matter and Energy. At root matter and energy are different manifestations of one thing (i.e. Being or Such-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ness</span>). However, Matter and Energy appear or manifest as differentiated and qualitatively different (and thus a prime, fundamental duality arises). Matter and Energy came to arise from this Nothing and are bound together in a “sea” of Nothingness (or divinity).<br /><br />I therefore believe in a trinity – Nothingness, Matter and Energy (mythological expressed in the West as Father–Son–Spirit, and in the East as Brahman–Maya–Atman).<br /><br />In this field of nothing there is an endless collision of processes – of interactions of matter and energy. “Objects” in the Newtonian sense do not exist in the field of Being but are rather the way in which we mentally organize a continuum of events or processes. These events are not random. They are governed by the structure and nature of matter and energy themselves and by the nature of space-time. The universe is structured as it is because matter and energy, by the conditions of their existence in space-time, must interact in certain and predictable ways.<br /><br />Collections of processes of energy and matter arise and coalesce and then return to the whole. Being continually reconfigures itself as collections of processes and interactions. Everything in the universe is therefore a manifestation of this great sea of Being comprised of matter and energy. Human beings are no exception. We come from dust and return to dust – to the great sea of Being that is not God but arises from God.<br /><br />In that I believe reality is fundamentally random, but ordered by the rules governing the matter and energy, I am led to conclude that Being is, in some sense, teleological. There is directionality to existence, a “τέλος” (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">telos</span>). Time moves forward, conditions beget effects, things arise, exist and then cease to exist. This directionality and self-organization is, for want of a better term inanimate “consciousness”. At least on this planet, this teleology gives rise to distinct evolutionary processes. Being flows from nothing, from that being come occasions of interactions of energy and matter to form inanimate things (first particles, then atoms, then molecules, then compounds, and so on). From some of this more complex matter comes Life which organizes in ever increasingly complex processes. From some Life comes sentience, and from some sentience comes animate consciousness. I leave open the question is open as to whether Life is a fundamentally different state of Being than Matter or Energy. Sentience seems an evolutionary development of Life (much as complex compounds are an evolutionary development of matter).<br /><br />In humanity, animate consciousness is capable for complex self-reflection. We are Being reflecting on itself. This development suggests that there are more evolved stages of development and that we are inexorably moving towards those stages. The goal of this evolution cannot be known philosophically. The stages of development cannot be predicted with certainty. While we can examine the stages of development on this planet and the short experiment that is humanity to glean what we can of the higher reaches of this evolution, but we cannot predict what stages will evolve. Nor can we know whether Man represents progress on this evolutionary road or is soon to be discarded by the Universe as a failed attempt at higher consciousness.<br /><br />There is, I believe as an article of pure faith, a hint of the τέλος or end-point of it all. Mystics and sages of all religious traditions - Western and Eastern - say that the goal is the eventual union of Being and Nothingness (the Atman with Brahman or the Soul with God). This is perhaps the ultimate spiritual destination of humanity as we arrive at ever higher reaches of consciousness. It may also be the ultimate end of the Universe as Being and Nothingness become undifferentiated.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-38825815737605818552007-10-13T09:39:00.000-07:002007-10-28T17:50:14.211-07:00Prolegomena to Metaphysics<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwUsZQ6MwZJGpZzY7dnPxyV2QPbdtmbCBDrWC3XbSzjelVMv1xdSbK-WTgDSzEhTHcWH4ZnS6fAdz9L7ugkO3gjuRLfBTwOkZi459Ja70tWeGLhkpJrtmCzc2NfIV6-qDJhiuT3zyjSnc/s1600-h/fractal45-anthara.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5121431822925171554" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 151px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 151px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwUsZQ6MwZJGpZzY7dnPxyV2QPbdtmbCBDrWC3XbSzjelVMv1xdSbK-WTgDSzEhTHcWH4ZnS6fAdz9L7ugkO3gjuRLfBTwOkZi459Ja70tWeGLhkpJrtmCzc2NfIV6-qDJhiuT3zyjSnc/s200/fractal45-anthara.jpg" border="0" /></a>I have debated about how personal to become in sharing my own deepest spiritual beliefs. Ulimately, however, to be honest with this blogging process it is important that you, dear reader, know the core of where my perspectives originate - what is the the central fountainhead of the pieces you see here. Before I do that, however, I have to provide some context.<br /><br />The title of this blog - Prolegomena to Metaphysics - is an homage to<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant"> Immanual Kant's</a> "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegomena">Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics</a>". This work was a distillation of the conclusions of his most famous work "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason">Critique of Pure Reason</a>" written to gain wider readership of the main work. A prolegomena is short essay that precedes and explains the more substantive work.<br /><br /><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,153)">The Great Traditions</span></strong><br /><br />Two great traditions have struggled with the issue of the nature of reality.<br /><br />The ancient Greeks had the leisure to invent philosophy. In a span of less than 50 years, the fundamental substance that would form the core of the Western debates for next 2200 years was said. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle">Aristotle</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato">Aristocles </a>(better known as Plato) defined the parameters of Western thought and indeed, some would argue, that all of Western intellectual history has been a footnote to these two intellectual giants. The significantly different perspectives of these two greats have been debated in different forms until the very recent past.<br /><br />Scholars agree that Aristotle, that premier taxonomist, got it about right when he divided philosophy into four areas: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics. Respectively, these ask: What is the nature of reality? How do we know truth? What is the good? What is the beautiful? Every other philosophical question seems to lie in one of these four areas. To oversimplify a bit, but not much, the west has attempted to understand these realities by looking primarily at the outer world through the lens of reason.<br /><br />While a simplification, Indian philosophy created six systems (darshanas) which seek to map human knowledge: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya">Samkhya</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga">Yoga</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya">Nyaya</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy#Vaisheshika">Vaiseshika</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimamsa">Mimamsa</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta">Vedanta</a>. Each of these schools addresses questions recognizable as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics. To again oversimplify, the East attempted to answer these questions by looking primarily within through the lens of observation.<br /><br />These questions - What is reality? How do we know the truth? What is the good? What is beautiful? - are the central questions of human existence. The West and East agree on this much. To ask these questions is what make us human – we are reflectively self-conscious.<br /><br />In the area of metaphysics a number of issues emanated from the central question – what is reality – and these issues recur in Eastern and Western philosophy are the same. Mind and Matter, God and No God, Unity and Multiplicity, Identity and Change, Reality and Illusion, Will and Fate, Causation, and so on.<br /><br />And both traditions spent thousands of years rehashing the same discussion, endlessly exploring nuance. In the West, reason refined the argument to the point where metaphysics died with Immanuel Kant. Kant who conclusively proved the limits of pure reason in determining the nature of reality as it was then understood. The East was less decisive. As people observed, they drifted into an endless array of sects and practices limited only by human experience with no rational metric to determine whether these beliefs bore relation to objective reality.<br /><br /><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,153)">The Revolution in Human Perspective</span></strong><br /><br />And then a remarkable thing happened, again within the course of 50 years. In 1905, in his spare time over several months, Albert Einstein wrote four articles that fundamentally changed the course of human thought. During that same period, observations of very small particles lead to very strange conclusions about the very fabric of the nature of reality itself. Unfortunately, the two views were at odds with one another. Because these views fundamentally shifted the way the world is viewed for the first time since the ancient Greeks started thinking on these things, the implications of these theories on the nature of reality began to work their way through the world of philosophy in the West. Because these ideas had resonance with mystical insights form the East, the East began a process of grounding its philosophy in outward reality. These developments forced both traditions to question assumptions and recast their world view from more or less common ground. In other words, integration became possible and an integral world view based on multiple traditions could begin to emerge.<br /><br />While many writers and thinkers could be chosen to discuss the emergence of this new level of human consciousness, the writings of two have had a most profound impact on me personally. These two seem somehow "essential" in that they articulate the core of what this revolution is about.<br /><br /><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,153)">A. Whitehead</span></strong><br /><br />In 1927/1928 a brilliant mathematician, theoretical physicist and philosopher, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead">Alfred North Whitehead</a>, delivered the Gifford lecture series in what was eventually collected in the book Process and Reality. This book is very tough sledding, made even more so by the fact that Whitehead never bothered to polish his lecture notes. The process cosmology elaborated in these lectures proposes that the fundamental elements of the universe are in process as occasions of experience. According to this notion, what people commonly think of as concrete objects are actually processes. Occasions of experience can be collected into groupings; something complex such as a human being is thus a grouping (or nexus) of many smaller occasions of experience. According to Whitehead, everything in the universe is characterized by experience (which is not to be confused with consciousness); there is no mind-body duality under this system, because "mind" is simply seen as a very developed kind of experiencing while "body" is a lower order process. Whitehead's occasions of experience are interrelated with every other occasion of experience that precedes it in time. Inherent to Whitehead's conception is the notion of time’s directionality; all experiences are influenced by prior experiences, and will influence future experiences. An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other experiences, and then a reaction to it.<br /><br />By application of his ideas, Whitehead is able to fundamentally reconcile a number of very difficult Western philosophical problems in unique and compelling ways. His solution – when stripped down, look profoundly Eastern – reality, as we perceive it, simply arises as processes – that being is a potential for becoming. Because of its density, this book has not seeped into popular conceptions, but it is the first and most profound attempt at a post-Kantian philosophic cosmology after Einstein. Whitehead essentially provides the intellectual freight needed to ground much of the intuitive insight expressed by the Continental existentialists and to a lesser extent the German Idealists, who were otherwise too easily dismissed by more rigorous approaches. It is not so easy to dismiss Whitehead.<br /><br /><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,153)">B. Aurobindo</span></strong><br /><br />In India, between 1914 to 1949, a western educated Indian mystic and philosopher, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo">Sri Aurobindo</a>, wrote a series of articles that would eventually be collected into book – “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Divine">The Life Divine</a>”. He realized that Einstein and the developments of evolutionary biology pointed the way to a reconciliation of Eastern and Western thought and that it was possible for human beings to perceive the world in way that brought reason and subjective experience together. In his book The Life Divine, he posited that humans represent a apex of evolution to date and that they are uniquely situated to lead a spiritual life. By this he meant that Matter and Spirit are met in human consciousness. He posited that the purpose of existence is to discover the latent spirit in all things and release infuse and elevate all of life by application of higher forms of human and transpersonal consciousness. The importance of Aurobindo cannot be overstated. His influence in Western thought has been far reaching through the seminal work of Allan Watts, Aldous Huxley, the Beat Movement. Indeed, the entire gestalt of the 1960’s (and New Consciousness thinking) was fundamentally shaped by his work. Whether people recognize the lineage or not, most progressive thinking in the Western world since then has been significantly influenced by his work.<br /><br />Based on these two pillars of early 20th Century thought, as well as some sother ignficiant writers, I have begun to develop a personal metaphysics.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-69443387774337894832007-10-11T14:35:00.000-07:002007-10-11T14:41:27.480-07:00The Pace of the Posts<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHm1pqjrJz_EMjVipaqXh5PT46O1nMHdWwYUWMwA5UZUlUivBsl3WmoJr6fYANaNiMEXGcUeL6iSQwFbXLrw3cCMjOMINf7QLolzV1Dh7Y0WSpxsV8fKeQYtdPAm_wqLGSToJ2vLIvoc4/s1600-h/pace+of+posts.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5120197019827571506" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 118px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 105px" height="83" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHm1pqjrJz_EMjVipaqXh5PT46O1nMHdWwYUWMwA5UZUlUivBsl3WmoJr6fYANaNiMEXGcUeL6iSQwFbXLrw3cCMjOMINf7QLolzV1Dh7Y0WSpxsV8fKeQYtdPAm_wqLGSToJ2vLIvoc4/s200/pace+of+posts.jpg" width="101" border="0" /></a> I have received a couple of queries regarding the drop off in the number of posts this month. I decided early on that that I could not keep up the pace of what I had been doing before (3 or 4 posts a week) and that it would make sense to post at a pace of about 1 or 2 posts per week. This will keep me fresh and engaged and is much more likely to make this project sustainable over the long haul. I the meantime, thanks for your encouragement.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-41763498558045061192007-10-06T20:15:00.000-07:002007-10-10T21:33:46.072-07:00Boomeritis<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5118429675145005826" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimLMnXd-e7OMkSCXlDYDU1cncs-MqWxw4vOGtTBvHh64hBFqAYcijk0N9PjhWmwkwrfhur_T1VlhDlz_T2_aUrJFucTFjkdpSJdeqbQtRekwhoAZJLhxWcOhxQl8KavpCGWjHVnALFLfU/s200/Lichenstein.jpg" border="0" />Ken Wilber</a> and others have put their finger on a very real set of problems associated with late stage pluralism. Wilber calls this complex of issues “Boomeritis”. As I mentioned in my last entry, much of our church reflects a consciousness reflective of post-modern pluralism. We live in a world of diverse cultures, races, and religions and increasingly these coexist in close proximity. From that melting pot comes the intellectual capacity to appreciate differences, deconstruct perspectives, and form identities that are not derived solely from one’s family and traditions. For the first time in human history, entire generations are able to transform the ways that they view themselves and revolutionize their understanding beyond the narrow confines of provincial enculturation. What this has produced is a remarkable mix of political activism and intentional personal development. However, the latter has, in many ways, gotten us into trouble.<br /><br /><strong>The Deeply Subjective Self</strong><br /><br />The postmodern self is a deeply subjective self. By rejecting traditional values and even recognizing the limits of scientific understanding, and by understanding intuitively that we construct reality as we go along, we are left with only our inner, subjective experience as authority. Our truth is relative. We cannot exercise judgment because there is no place to stand to determine validity. We reject the notion that anyone has anything of real value to say because we distrust both authority and hierarchy. And our feelings become the ultimate arbiters of good and bad, right and wrong.<br /><br />In the end, we evade personal responsibility, because, after all, there are no true standards which can universally govern our behavior. We alternate between terminal “niceness” (because, after all, a person’s feelings are at the core of the truth of their being) to a rampant meanness (because I have a “right” to my opinion and a responsibility to assert myself to avoid giving in to my “victimhood” or to establish appropriate “boundaries”). This is the world of the sensitive self, the “Me” generation, self-righteous political correctness and cultural creativity.<br /><br />When you strip all of this away, you are left with a very loud mantra: “Nobody tells me what to do!” This, in essence, is a deep form of narcissism and it is potentially quite dangerous. As Elizabeth Debold says in her article “<a href="http://www.wie.org/j22/debold.asp?page=1">Boomeritis and Me</a>”:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="color:#000000;">[I]n the context of a world careening out of control precisely because we are so out of control, this is actually no joke. Narcissism is a force in us, built up over hundreds of thousands of years of human history, which must be renounced in order to make the evolutionary leap to a new way of being. It is a willful, and aggressive, denial of the creative force of the universe, whether we call it the Divine or God or what you will. This core motivation—Nobody tells me what to do!—sounds like the peevish rant of a two-year-old, which it is, but it is not harmless when it provides us with an excuse not to care beyond ourselves, destroys the true nobility of the spiritual quest and the imperative to reach for the highest in human potential, or justifies the rage of the innumerable sensitive selves who feel victimized in contemporary culture.</span></blockquote><strong>Boomeritis in the UU Church</strong><br /><br />I see this in myself and I see it everyday in our church. We UUs participate in this cultural complex without even thinking about it. We see it in our culture of criticism. We see it in our intolerance of conservatives. We see it in our stated commitment to liberal political action but failure to back up that commitment with sacrificial action. We see it in our token environmentalism and our claims to seek diversity (while our churches remain overwhelmingly homogenous). I am the first to admit to my own hypocracy in all of this. I am infected as well. However, for the good of the planet, I have to move on and I suspect we in the UU church have to do the same.<br /><br />The trick, it seems to me, is to recognize that I am not here to have my way but to serve. I am here to contribute, not to take. I am here to lay my life down. I can no longer afford to say “Nobody can tell <em>ME</em> what to do!” but rather I must fundamentally say “My only hope lies in being of use in this world and what gets in the way of that is my self.” To my mind, that requires that I seek deeper spiritual truth -- that I learn and realize the true nature of my egoic self.<br /><br /><a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/work-of-jean-gebser.html">Jean Gebser</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dynamics">Don Beck, Chris Cowan</a>, Ken Wilber and many others claim that we are on the threshold of a new level of consciousness. If we manage to negotiate that process, we open ourselves to new stages of human evolution in which we deeply see and understand the integrative nature of reality. Those perspectives hold promise for our solving some rather pernicious and dangerous problems. But those perspectives require that we let go of myopic understandings of who we really are and begin to understand that all that we think we are is merely a passing emergence in flow of infinite time and space.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-49078251530200403262007-10-02T22:04:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:34:09.170-07:00Pluralism in UU Churches<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl5-mJkDspTgLjvmkZhg_r0hYgh5sRxcywbVKEv3ObaS0GyFlgTpSk8Es1bs2hD77VL0S9OJaJTS0ulMeSHv7aGqNSRqiGuYubaWN0F_vbqnTU7pNDGsFjU0dh2Hwk60lhLhyu4f-uqkM/s1600-h/picasso_3women.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5116972650439510754" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 162px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 178px" height="175" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl5-mJkDspTgLjvmkZhg_r0hYgh5sRxcywbVKEv3ObaS0GyFlgTpSk8Es1bs2hD77VL0S9OJaJTS0ulMeSHv7aGqNSRqiGuYubaWN0F_vbqnTU7pNDGsFjU0dh2Hwk60lhLhyu4f-uqkM/s200/picasso_3women.jpg" width="159" border="0" /></a> On earlier blog posts, I took on humanism, arguing that it is a fundamentally played out moral view of the world resting on assumptions that were conclusively debunked in the late 1700s. I have taken the position that building a faith on a humanistic worldview is doomed to failure and that we, as a movement, have to look beyond mere humanism.<br /><br />This article takes on the next step of development – post-modern pluralism. If our modern church was founded on humanist values, it is now dominated by post-modern pluralism.<br /><br /><strong>Pluralism Defined.</strong><br /><br />What do I mean by pluralism? Specifically, pluralism refers to a post-modern understanding of the world that recognizes the relative nature of “truth” and the central reality of human experience. With the breakdown of epistemological certainty ushered in by Hume and later Kant, it became evident that what can be known is extremely limited if, indeed, it is possible to know anything at all with an appreciable level of confidence. As is often the case, it took awhile for humanity to catch up to the implications of these philosophic conclusions. However, by the early 20<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">th</span> Century, the philosophic schools of phenomenology, logical positivism, linguistic philosophy, semiotics, existentialism, structuralism and a few others reflected the full blown attempt to come to terms with the notion that “man” is not the measure of all things. By the 1960s, these intermediate ideas had penetrated the general culture and “post-modernism” in art, literature and social criticism. Representative <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">intellectual</span> apologists of this post modern movement include Thomas Kuhn, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Lyotard</span>, Richard <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Roty</span> and Jean <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Baudrillard</span>.<br /><br />While this is a diverse crowd and any generalizations are bound to oversimplify, for the sake of this blog, it seems the central theme is the general consensus of these schools of thought that our reality is, largely, constructed by human beings. There is no “objective” truth which is out there that we perceive. Rather, we attempt to make sense of a maelstrom of phenomena and in the process construct reality. Schools differ as to whether the primary drives of this construction lie in language, political structures, or cultures. On the positive side, this leads to recognition that no one has a corner on the truth. Truth can be found in all cultures and in all peoples and all cultures and value systems must be honored. This world-centric understanding is profoundly important on the level of political action.<br /><br /><strong>The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.<br /></strong><br />Post-modern Pluralists, at their best, have a deep desire to act politically on behalf of oppressed peoples. being deeply sensitive to matters of race, sexual orientation, gender, poverty and marginalization. On a societal level, this postmodern worldview has accomplished much: the civil rights movement, feminism, environmental protection and ecological sensitivity, the beginnings of health care reform and an awareness of political marginalization in all manner of forms<br /><br />However there is a very real downside to this world view. Postmodern pluralists share a common and fundamental mistrust of the spiritual, especially when experienced at the individual level. They are also thoroughgoing materialists. Given a lack of any basis for determining validity claims, and a radical mistrust of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">individual</span> subjective experience coupled with a denial of the notion of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">transpersonal</span> reality, they end up with a highly relativistic world-view. Because everything is constructed, there is no place to stand to evaluate value systems. You, in your perspectives, are as conditioned by language, society, culture and so on as everyone else and so you have no authority to “judge” the value systems of others. This leads to is a significant distrust of subjective experience, a rabid dislike of hierarchy, and spiritual experience and as a logical consequence, the result is a relativistic moral despair. (In its inevitable extreme, we can’t condemn Hitler because, after all, his value system is just one of many and who is to say, in any absolute sense, that his viewpoint <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">wasn</span>’t valid.) Indeed, it becomes very difficult to ultimately justify actions of liberation and political action – if every system is as valid as any other, then what allows us judge the oppressor’s way as “wrong”. Ultimately, postmodernism ends up becoming form of moral nihilism. Foucault recognized this, rejected his deep constructivist approach in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">middle of</span> his career and began working towards a different model.<br /><br />In response to this moral quagmire, Pluralism <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">hypocrically</span> simply asserts an elitist moral system. All systems that are less broadminded are simply declared to be inferior on the grounds that they are not inclusive. Thus, in the name of inclusiveness, the Pluralists exclude vast swaths of human culture. Their ire is directed towards what are perceived as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">dominator</span> worldviews – namely mythic religion and rationalist <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">scientism</span>. In self-contradiction to the notion that there is no morally superior worldview, the pluralist sees any moral system that cannot tolerate other systems as intolerable. There is also a tendency to romanticize and exalt cultures that are indigenous or non-Western. These are seen as pure and the victims of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">dominator</span> cultures of Europe. Moreover, feminine values are exalted over male values. The former are seen as inclusive and connective while the later are seen as destructive and purely <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">agentic</span>. Thus for all of its vaunted open-mindedness, the pluralistic worldview cannot admit even the partial validity of the moral stance of religious or scientific worldviews.<br /><br />Consequently, postmodernism tends foster the apotheosis of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">victimhood</span>. Victims should be rescued from the dominating forces of Western culture (whether religious or scientific/industrial). There is a great deal of anger and judgment against those who are perceived to be seeking the imposition of their value system on others. On an individual level, this leads to a certain degree of narcissim (which I will explore in a different blog entry).<br /><br />Politically, pluralists tend to have a very difficult time figuring out how to address “evil”. They are deeply conflicted around issues of crime and punishment, terrorism, use of force and other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">agentic</span> action. They simply don’t have the bandwidth or the categories to figure out how to address such issues from their framework. They recognize that lower tier responses are wanting, but they have nothing compelleing to offer in their stead.<br /><br /><strong>The Fundamental Failure of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Open-mindedness</span></strong><br /><br />While the entire ethos of this worldview is a purported open-mindedness, the irony, of course, is that this elitist and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">monoptic</span> view of the world denigrates any value system perceived to be less open-minded. Despite that fact that it has a deeply nihilistic moral fabric, it seeks to impose its view of what is moral on anyone it perceives to be less morally developed. In fact, postmodern pluralism is a very closed system. Political correctness and thought policing are endemic. Straying from relativistic notions is met with fierce opposition and castigation.<br /><br />If humanists are alive and well in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">UU</span> church, so are post-modern pluralists. Our denominational academic institutions are predominately pluralistic (as are most higher level academic institutions). Post-modern pluralism is also easy to spot in our churches. Most Unitarian <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Universalists</span> claim open-mindedness and tolerance, yet cannot tolerate political or religious conservatives. There are certain things which could not be said in a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">UU</span> church without provoking a virulent response. There is a stark dualistic thinking that takes hold of many with certain things declared to be good and other things declared to be evil. Our ability to think in nuanced and creative ways is hampered by the fact that we simply write off vast amounts of cultural and intellectual legacy that could be used as fodder for advancing our understanding of the world.<br /><br /><strong>What's Next.</strong><br /><br />So why do I bring all of this up. A few posts ago, I talked about Jean <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Gebser</span> and his view that humanity is on the brink of a significant transformation. Pluralism may well be a way station in the evolutionary development, but it is a mistake to linger there for too long. Indeed, post-modernism may represent the final stage of the mental structure with its insistence that material reality is all that exists. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Gebser</span> would encourage us to recognize that there are orders of consciousness that are above this worldview.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-11573142891728156942007-09-26T12:42:00.000-07:002007-09-26T23:45:30.448-07:00Corrosive Criticism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm_XyIhKh4FPHQHXIx_L2j2UF-a0E8PeweFoxlytcCn8geJqIjrUjCkhbPX6xcOagMr6Vixm-SHPR6XV5nKZ07jKMBg6da9f7djBcDAWYPYzZd99xmTX8Fn4hEBJcCB5oxiXkslSSL3Qg/s1600-h/Thumb+down.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5114605187156544210" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm_XyIhKh4FPHQHXIx_L2j2UF-a0E8PeweFoxlytcCn8geJqIjrUjCkhbPX6xcOagMr6Vixm-SHPR6XV5nKZ07jKMBg6da9f7djBcDAWYPYzZd99xmTX8Fn4hEBJcCB5oxiXkslSSL3Qg/s200/Thumb+down.jpg" border="0" /></a>When my wife and I joined our first <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UU</span></span> church in 2003, it was obvious to us that we had “come home”. We found in our community a group of very congenial folks who cared about the world and were willing to engage with each other and with life in thoughtful ways. We got involved immediately and have never looked back. I have my issues with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">UU</span></span> church as a whole. I am concerned with what I view to be a fundamental failure of the larger church to address the deeper spiritual needs of congregants and capture a cultural trend that could sustain us into the future. However, none of that affects my deep respect and compassion for my fellow <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">UUs</span></span>, particularly those I know at my church.<br /><br />It is now three years later. I have sat on and chaired several committees. My wife is now president of our Boar. During that time I have noticed something I have found endemic to the life of our community and, from what I hear, is pretty characteristic of other communities as well. It is the pall of corrosive criticism.<br /><br />Now, don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there is a place for thoughtful and informed feedback and even criticism if it well <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">conceived</span> and designed to build up and improve on what exists. However, this type of criticism takes a lot of work and care. It is almost never an immediate reaction to a fresh set of facts and circumstances. I am not taking about this kind of thoughtful, constructive criticism. Rather I am talking about what might be called “corrosive criticism”.<br /><br />In my sort tenure with our church, I have seen people leave our community because of the harshness of people’s judgments of their contributions or the contributions of others. I have watched good people who have put in hours and hours of hard work have it torn to shreds by people in seconds who are reacting without any real thought or consideration. I have seen good, thoughtful ideas tentatively put forward by people who have potential leadership skill put down and dismissed without any real understanding of what was being said. The toll of this type of criticism is enormous.<br /><br />From what I can see, more than any other dynamic in church life, this type of knee-jerk response and lack of restraint in sharing every idea that pops into our heads, demoralizes people and makes it difficult to recruit leaders. Who wants to set themselves up for this kind of abuse? Why would people want to put their heart and soul in the work to have it so cavalierly disregarded?<br /><br />Personally, I think this is a real problem. I am really trying this year to be a part of the solution. As such I am working on the following:<br /><ul><li>Affirming people for the work they are doing and the contributions they are making.</li><li>Using as a mantra: “Those who do the work get to make the decisions.”</li><li>When I don’t understand a decision of some import, I am trying to go to a person who participated in making the decision and ask questions. The types of questions I have found useful include: How did you come to that decision? Did you consider X and how did that factor into your decision? Is the decision final or is there additional opportunity for input? How are you finding that people are responding? Is there anything I can do to help? </li><li>In conversations about decisions, I am trying to acknowledge the hard work of the people involved and the fact that they undoubtedly had more information than I do. </li></ul><p>I find that these questions are almost always best prefaced with something like: “This must have been a tough decision. Have you gotten any flack for it? I want you to know that I support your personal work in this community and I know how much you give. I also want you to know that, to the extent the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">opportunity</span> arises, I will <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">publicly</span> support the decision you all made. It would help me to understand how you got to the decision both for my own sake and also to help me in my conversations with others." </p><p>In trying to avoid corrosive criticism, I feel that I can positively contribute to the community. What I have found is that the people who are making decisions have most often very thoughtful reasons for deciding as they did. I may agree or disagree, but these things are rarely so clear cut that there is only one right course of action. And for the sake of my community, and its long term health, I can support people of goodwill who are doing the best they can as volunteers.<br /><br />Finally, I would note, that if we cannot be civil and supportive of one another, it seems that it will be very difficult to make an appreciable difference in the world. And so, out of compassion and out of a desire to support and strengthen those in my community who contribute, I am seeking to avoid corrosive criticism.</p><p>© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</p>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-71444376731167361822007-09-24T05:58:00.000-07:002007-09-26T13:33:23.343-07:00Guest Blog: Maslow RevistedBy Anna Davis, ARNP, MA<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXSTiJ9pMKG79ZtJ1SYsXj90p6BjeRA2GxbDvBT2hvKbvN3zMb7oedHSUvKMctpS_Kh7S1zlz0r2FQsd65XGBqPb6weQLtodftOy0-nsCcAOfrGOKeOdPvMZJsjPxmWL3-_QzM-mPOrk0/s1600-h/butterfly_4679a.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5113757691324795586" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXSTiJ9pMKG79ZtJ1SYsXj90p6BjeRA2GxbDvBT2hvKbvN3zMb7oedHSUvKMctpS_Kh7S1zlz0r2FQsd65XGBqPb6weQLtodftOy0-nsCcAOfrGOKeOdPvMZJsjPxmWL3-_QzM-mPOrk0/s200/butterfly_4679a.jpg" border="0" /></a>I have long appreciated Maslow's insights on which he based his theory of needs, but I've always had a problem with the idea that the being needs are luxuries. The definition of a need is that without it, an organism is less/not able to grow along its developmental arc, if not survive. An example of this difference is sex, as plenty of people have survived long times without sex, but there is something to an argument that levels intimacy of relationships and the prospect for progeny are severely curtailed without it.<br /><div></div><br /><div>While I was finishing my MA in psychology, I chanced upon an old article written by a man who was then APA president. (Alas, I have been unable to recall his name or find it again.) The article stated that the further in time between the initial urge to meet a need, and when actual physiologic damage happened, the more psychopathology one could find about that need. As an example, he offered the difference between the needs for urination and eating. Both are needs, but damage from urine backing up into the kidneys can happen in about 2 hours, vs starvation takes about 2 weeks. Accordingly, we find very little psychopathology about urination, and so much about food. </div><br /><div></div><div>I offer that Maslow was correct about his hierarchal arrangement of needs, but what he got wrong was the criteria. I offer that ALL needs are equally needs, and not one is more important than the other, but some are more immediate. The further up the list, the longer it likely takes to meet the needs. Trancendance seems to take the better part of a lifetime, if we get to it even then. (The concept of reincarnation appeals for this---if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again.)</div><br /><div></div><div>I think Maslow listing them as importance vs immediacy was him reflecting a major value of our culture; the easiest way to control people is to keep them with one or more needs pitted against each other. (Most of us have at one time or another chosen to tolerate some sacrifice of our need for self esteem in the workplace so as not to endanger our ability to provide for food, clothing and shelter.) Double binds such as these have long been seen in psychology as a most toxic source of stress. Research into the effects of the stress hormone cortisol is increasingly showing us that stress not only breaks our bodies down, we can't repair and grow beyond past damage until the coast is clear.</div><br /><div></div><div>Because our culture makes the being needs seem as luxuries, and most of us are constantly on a treadmill chasing after the deficiency needs, we remain maleable and will sacrifice self-actualization and trancendance that would more likely free us from the yoke.It is no coincidence that each of the few examples of people who have reached trancendance (MLK, Jr, Jesus, Ghandi, etc.,) have been radicals and revolutionaries, and terrifying to those holding power in their age. Our current system is no different and prefers there be as few such leaders as possible, and ones who emerge must hire body guards because their predecessors have tended to get killed for thier trouble. </div><br /><div></div><div>I would not necessarily ask everyone to lead a nationwide or global movement, but encourage revolution in more subtle ways. As part of my practice as a therapist, I routinely refer clients to "The Relaxation and Stress Reduction Workbook," (Davis, Eshelman, & McKay; New Harbinger Press) which is a collection of exercises designed to help people gain some control over one's own internal experience. (This is not suppress emotions, but be able to not have them take control, allowing wisdom to emerge when rationalism is imformed by the heart.) When people have such skills to call upon at any time, they become confident that they get to make clearheaded choices in life, and they get less vulnerable to external manipulations. </div><br /><div></div><div>Further, I teach my ideas about Maslow's hierarchy and that yes, we all will still have to juggle varying priorities as needs emerge and are sated on different time scales, (much like the old image of a Vaudeville plate spinner.) But, if we know that ALL of our needs should get to included on the list, we can keep an eye to the longer term ones in the quieter moments between meals, chores, bills, homework and the distraction of entertainment. Having all the needs on the list allows us to make clearer choices about what we really need in the long run, and avoid the trap of functioning in crisis mode all the time. </div><br /><div></div><div>I believe that as more people change thier perspectives as I have offered, there will be a critical mass effect that will change our broader culture in profound ways. I am not a visionary who can offer strategies of how it will all work out. But I am hopeful that these changes are for the better. I believe that if all people were freer, calmer, and more aware of thier own needs, it would make for deeper and richer communication, which might lead to more efficient means of everyone getting all thier needs met, at least eventually. I continue to wait and see while I work to subvert the dominant paradigm. Viva la revolucion!</div><br /><div></div><div>© 2007 Anna Davis, ARNP, MA. All rights reserved. Used with permission.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-86562426424023622007-09-19T23:21:00.000-07:002007-09-26T13:32:14.041-07:00The Work of Jean Gebser<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQgpQZhIyNmsyTMz5VNv_Z-Y9E0OBq1mkgANz548ejiCUnPuCY-JKE_1SyPtcXfpo7TAJdVy46wL0dAkipUrJsftL2ew38ETJgSxAv0P7aDghwy0R3Q82A-RhfXk6bayH0WY_kSvK0-PM/s1600-h/Gebser.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5112169607283486994" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQgpQZhIyNmsyTMz5VNv_Z-Y9E0OBq1mkgANz548ejiCUnPuCY-JKE_1SyPtcXfpo7TAJdVy46wL0dAkipUrJsftL2ew38ETJgSxAv0P7aDghwy0R3Q82A-RhfXk6bayH0WY_kSvK0-PM/s200/Gebser.jpg" border="0" /></a>This is a post I have been wanting to do for some time. I finally got up the gumption to tap this out. I hope you, dear reader, find this useful.<br /><br />Jean Gebser (1905 – 1973) was an autodidact whose main impact was in the study of the transformations of human consciousness. He was also a linguist and poet. While he has had a loyal following both in the United States and Europe, it has been relatively small. <a href="http://www.kenwilber.com/home/landing/index.html">Ken Wilber’s </a>work has brought him to the attention of a much wider audience and Gebser’s ideas are most important to anyone who is wrestling seriously with issues of spirituality, politics and human development. His experiences in pre-war Germany, Italy, France and Spain and reflection on the sea-change of intellectual perspectives reflected in the full blossoming of post-modern thought caused him to look closely at the structures of human consciousness through human history. After fleeing to Switzerland hours before the boarders were closed after the invasion of France, we befriended Carl Jung and did most of his mature writing while connected to the Jung Institute. His most notable book is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ever-Present-Origin-Foundations-Aperspectival/dp/0821407694">The Ever-Present Origin</a>. His work draws on fields as diverse as poetry, philosophy, religion, physics, architecture, music, and political science. His principal thesis is that humanity has experienced various structures of consciousness that carry within them deep perspectives of time, space, human relations, cosmic connections and images. These epochs span millennia and as there is a fundamental failure in one structure, another emerges. Gebser identifies five basic structures evidenced through human history: The Archaic, The Magic, The Mythic, The Mental and The Integral Ages. Each age includes, yet transcends the ages before it.<br /><br /><strong>The Archaic Structure</strong> is difficult for us to grasp – it lies at the dawn of human awareness. Consciousness is dimly aware of itself as something separate from the flow around it. There is some sense of past, present and future but it is wrapped in a miasma and is largely undifferentiated. It is a world devoid of perspectivity. Structures that associate with this stage are groups or family units much like the great apes.<br /><br /><strong>The Magic Structure</strong> is characterized by five primary characteristics: 1) a sense of self, but little or no ego structure or deeper self-awareness, 2) ambigous or cyclical sense of space and time, 3) interweaving of self and nature, 4) a magical relationship between self and not-self, 5) a lack of understanding of the differences between the non-liminal and liminal. Language emerges as this stage and words are seen as powerful in their own right. Man is deeply identified with nature and surviving within the natural order is a matter of ritual, incantation, and magic. Religion tends to be shamanistic and animistic. Political organizations tend to be tribal. The cultures tend to be hunter-gathers or in their later stages, horticultural. Tool making is rudimentary. Slavery is endemic. Art begins to be produced. Time tends to be cyclical and space is holy and laden with significance. Gods begin to emerge, but they tend to be local and associated with the tribe or family. This is a highly emotive phase.<br /><br /><strong>The Mythic Structure</strong> brings the advent of more sophisticated tools and with it agriculture. Myths begin to emerge and with them mythical beings who stand above nature and can control it. The afterlife begins to become an important factor in life. Formal religion, typically with priests and holy men emerges and political structures tend to be centralized and autocratic. Slavery continues to exist, often on a massive scale. This phase tends to rely heavily on images and art begins to become quit sophisticated. Poetry becomes an important communicator and oral traditions develop to share the myths and stories. Space tends to be two dimensional and time is linear but malleable by the gods. Eventually this stage develops into monotheism and creedal belief systems. This in creates a profound ideological identification and an intolerance of the myths and religions of others. Political structures tend towards the authoritarian and imperial. Technology is sophisticated but largely based on trades and crafts. Guilds and castes are common.<br /><br /><strong>The Mental Structure</strong> involves humanity stepping from two dimensional space into three dimensional space. Art becomes truly perspectival and fully articulated. Intellectual abstraction becomes possible as do pursuits of philosophy, science, mathematics, and other studies. Works of fiction emerge. Monotheism continues but eventually gives way to esoteric forms of unitive mysticism, philosophy or atheism. Time is seen as linear and cause and effect are essential to understanding the nature of the world. Ultimately, the mental structure gives way to a form of reductionism in which all that exists is material. Technology is used to reshape our understanding of the universe and matter itself. Industrialization emerges. This stage sees the rise of the nation state and the corporation. Human freedom is highly regarded. The dark side of this age is a profound lack of ethical restraint. While technology can be used for great good, it also wrecks havoc with war and environmental degradation.<br /><br /><strong>The Integral Structure</strong> may, according to Gebser, be emerging. He sees the fundamental changes in our understanding of space and time as highly significant – just as with the transitions of prior ages where space and time underwent radical restructuring in human consciousness. The emergent picture is that time and space are not fixed, but relative and related. This age, Geber speculates will be trans-rational, trans-personal, and diaphanous (where there is transparent recognition of the whole, not just parts). It is likely to be highly mystical with deep realizations by both individuals and societies in which truth is uncovered in large chunks of integrated wholeness. The tensions and relations between things are more important, at times, than the things themselves and process becomes of pre-eminent concern. Nothing is seen as isolated and there is a profound experience and understanding of inter-connection and even identity. Time is seen both as infinite and illusory. Sentient life is seen as connected. While it is too early in this process to determine what political structures will emerge or what art will evolve into, there is are hints on the horizon for those who are looking for these.<br /><br />I find interesting is that the mental stage was adumbrated well before its more general emergence. It was presaged by the intellectual flowering in ancient Greece. Is it possible that, with the current Integral Stage, a presaging may be found in the writings of India in the writings of sages such as Nagarjuna and Sankara?<br /><br />As we look at our own culture, we see examples of late mythical stages (with rational overtones) and late mental stages of development. We begin to see, in cultural creatives and many on the vanguard of spiritual and intellectual exploration, the emergence of an integral consciousness. This, it seems to me, is important news for Unitarian Universalists.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-63320232069878401622007-09-19T06:44:00.000-07:002007-09-24T06:14:17.438-07:00Rapid Discovery Morality<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv6a6No0VQ202GGFAgBDeSb1r9Lt4iSmhnRhz0kIVPkD8Sya__LcXE8biBqg7K4HISf9Zp3PcLQgRg0F_XPvkFm9xRa-q1e7ZyAoIOtFg2PVDSsPwDO__c6Wv9pq3l_lgxDH6WngByayw/s1600-h/Smoke.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5111911359489913090" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv6a6No0VQ202GGFAgBDeSb1r9Lt4iSmhnRhz0kIVPkD8Sya__LcXE8biBqg7K4HISf9Zp3PcLQgRg0F_XPvkFm9xRa-q1e7ZyAoIOtFg2PVDSsPwDO__c6Wv9pq3l_lgxDH6WngByayw/s200/Smoke.jpg" border="0" /></a>In his book <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2HS1DOZ35EgC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=lYVBoovZhT&sig=hdu_a8rchUTWohRo-oackx-pnYw&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dsociology%2Bof%2Bphilosophies%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sourceid%3Die7%26rlz%3D1I7GGLJ&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title">Sociology of Philosophies</a>, Randall Collins uses the term “rapid discovery science” to refer to the blossoming of human understanding of the material world that occurred in the late Renaissance, its development in and through the Enlightenment, into a burgeoning economic and technological juggernaut that continues to this day. He argues that this breeder reactor phenomena of human knowledge was made possible by three things: the development of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">genealogies</span> of research instruments, the creation of mathematical models in philosophic networks which both drove and were driven by technological research innovations, and the social networks of philosophers, scientists and occultists that existed at the time. (p. 807.) As Collins states, “The “scientific revolution” in Europe around 1600 changes not the natural focus of traditional science but its social dynamics. By linking intellectual networks onto genealogies of research equipment, a stream of new phenomena is produced on which theoretical interpretations may be constructed. Innovation and hence intellectual reputations no longer depend on moves in abstraction-reflexivity sequence, as in philosophy, but on manipulating the forefront of research technology.” The development of quick consensus at the intellectual core solidified these networks and allowed them to develop exponentially. The convergence of these factors transformed the Western world and generated the apogee of what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Gebser</span> would call the “mental” age – the Age of Reason. While a great boon in many ways, as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Gebser</span> points out, it lacks a moral center – it creates remarkable technology but no commensurately powerful moral values system that governs how it should be used. That failure has led us to the brink of planetary destruction either through our exploitation of the earth or through nuclear annihilation.<br /><br />So the question, it seems to me, is how do we, as humanity, create “rapid discovery morality” before it is too late? What are its constituent parts? It seems that some pieces are in place. We have now mapped both the human psyche and the stages of moral and social development to some degree. We have models in place that allow a human being to consciously and intentionally begin to explore human potential. We also have a popular convergence of great spiritual traditions in the West and the East in forms heretofore unknown. Finally, for better and for worse, we have an occultism that is playing at the margins of this process. What we do not have are lineages for passing on information, nor have we discovered processes that reliably take advantage of moving those individuals and societies that are willing to the next higher stages of development. That, it seems to me, is the challenge of the religious calling – first for ourselves, then for our communities, and finally for the world. Do we not owe it to ourselve and our planet to figure this out sooner rather than later?<br /><br /> © 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-23889685609592680102007-09-18T06:28:00.001-07:002007-09-24T06:14:38.776-07:00Social Transcendence<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTxIcde7qgiyIje3KNj-pdp90uxvaaXjZYw5DLxsx0c59u_AdcwVIUXjwH4Nf1_I_y6wu83VL6e6WtDvHcFlCoKB7-JrBKeE4e6FwotlU5fyizHsF1K3MQAM_KSJQyEjCXoQZntyJh__s/s1600-h/Fractal_Dimension_small.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5111535704403319186" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTxIcde7qgiyIje3KNj-pdp90uxvaaXjZYw5DLxsx0c59u_AdcwVIUXjwH4Nf1_I_y6wu83VL6e6WtDvHcFlCoKB7-JrBKeE4e6FwotlU5fyizHsF1K3MQAM_KSJQyEjCXoQZntyJh__s/s200/Fractal_Dimension_small.jpg" border="0" /></a>In her book, <a href="http://www.marshasinetar.com/bookWebPages/ordinaryPeopleMonks.html">Ordinary People as Monks and Mystics</a>, Marsha <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Sinetar</span></span> talks of the inherent disquiet that accompanies the beginning of the spiritual journey. There is, she says, a distancing from social convention and being enmeshed in the currents of life. She calls this process “social transcendence”. From my experience, there is a great deal of truth in this concept. Those who seek a spiritual path are a bit syncopated. We are in the world, but not quite of it. We make different choices for different reasons than our peers. This difference is part of what fuels and engages us in the quest of deeper truths. There is nothing special in this, everyone has this to some degree, it is only that those who are on a self-consciously spiritual path don't push these things away - they instead embrace them.<br /><br />This is, to my mind, precisely where a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">vipassana</span></span> practice is so very useful. When I am paying attention to the little things, as they arise in my awareness, I find that I socially transcend in more skillful ways. As I pay attention, it becomes increasingly clear that a large part of my “identity” is the result of social conditioning and I can actually see its working as it exists in my thoughts and actions. This revelation of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">nature</span> of the the self, with the slow peeling back of the accretions of social layers, admits the freedom required to begin to explore my own true nature. And, as I do this, I become less reactive in the world around me. I am naturally more tolerant of the social unfolding. And, on very good days, I am able to see that process clearly enough to be able to interject the right action at just the right point to be helpful.<br /><br /> © 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-71200179276228287472007-09-17T21:11:00.000-07:002007-09-24T06:15:35.860-07:00Humanism Reprise<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK4XH0nacgnRYo98NiBjPxXT_46578jQnlKhpfXKGAfDTHYJ8NSNEE6xTp0NXKjx87zKzsTNaC-VkDVaQudJ7yO0IREvX9MQvFWzYhNYRVWYt5mY34cmZ5wNCwZ48M0SOk5kRuSow4wPg/s1600-h/humanism_big.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5111392480128899458" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK4XH0nacgnRYo98NiBjPxXT_46578jQnlKhpfXKGAfDTHYJ8NSNEE6xTp0NXKjx87zKzsTNaC-VkDVaQudJ7yO0IREvX9MQvFWzYhNYRVWYt5mY34cmZ5wNCwZ48M0SOk5kRuSow4wPg/s200/humanism_big.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>In the recent article “<a href="http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/27173.shtml?p">Does Humanism need to be new</a>?” Doug Muder wrestles with the question of how humanism can be made relevant and how a militant new atheism fits into the picture. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, “practical people who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct philosopher.” Some of my very best friends are religious humanists, and I care for them deeply. They are very moral and kind people and have very good intentions. However, I have to say that they are the unwitting slaves of some very defunct philosophers.<br /><br />With all due respect to them and to good humanists everywhere, humanism is fighting a rearguard action and simply will not succeed. Its quest for widespread acceptance of an Enlightenment worldview is doomed to ultimate failure. While the reasons for this inevitable failure are intensely complex and wrapped in long history, the culmination of the line of the thought that spelt their demise is found in the thinking David Hume. While this grossly oversimplifies the matter, it is the best leverage point I know of to make this point. Hume’s body of work conclusively demonstrates that one cannot arrive at a moral system from observable phenomena alone. That singular observation, the rationale behind it and its necessary corollaries spelled out more fully in Hume’s broader work sound the death knell to an optimistic humanist value structure. This fundamental breakdown of the ability to of representational reason alone to cope with moral and aesthetic truth, as acknowledged by Hume, accounts for the Humanism’s increasingly marginalized voice<br /><br />If humanism had its birth in the early renaissance, it met its demise over 300 years ago in the late Enlightenment. The rise of empirical skepticism was a deathblow from which it cannot recover. The German and English Idealists attempted to revive a moral center, but in the end were unsuccessful. To date we have not been able to find a widely acceptable answer to the question of the relationship between reason and morals. Post-Kantians everywhere (and most of those educated in universities after the 1960s are the unwitting slaves of Kant and his intellectual progeny) understand this problem at a visceral level. Such people recognize the fundamental inability of Humanism to put forward a compelling moral position.<br /><br />This fundamental failure of humanists to grasp post-modernist thought means that they will be forever marginalized. The world has clearly moved on into postmodernism and many are now exploring integral models of understanding the world. Humanism simply does not have the intellectual horsepower to address humanity’s deepest questions. Continuing to dream of a rationalist renaissance is a fine fantasy, but rather quixotic in a post-modern world. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</div>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-2991214917839378732007-09-16T15:16:00.000-07:002007-09-24T06:16:00.954-07:00Contemplative Activism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOs7T8NqXeJqPeEjmaJwjoQxmOsPYtHQKdyWq0cJRGKliY77VY8EnzayoKbG8VtY1hRpqHVttK2oDfSmSCHJvc0w6ju9WAkf3Z42wsysZohOR7Lba_cer0bA2eHBOZwpAzyLKH4zheOig/s1600-h/Escobedo_FlowofCompassion3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5110929858333924466" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOs7T8NqXeJqPeEjmaJwjoQxmOsPYtHQKdyWq0cJRGKliY77VY8EnzayoKbG8VtY1hRpqHVttK2oDfSmSCHJvc0w6ju9WAkf3Z42wsysZohOR7Lba_cer0bA2eHBOZwpAzyLKH4zheOig/s200/Escobedo_FlowofCompassion3.jpg" border="0" /></a>What is the relationship between the contemplative life and the ethical life? Is there a way to tie these two together? To what extent does the development of a greater sense of inner spaciousness and transformation result in more profoundly transformative practices in our efforts to make the world a better place? Many intuitively believe that the outer journey must be supported by a rich interior life and that an exclusive focus on interior practice is narcissistic and in the end, counter-productive to true spiritual development. Yet the connection between a rich interior life and a robust social engagement remains elusive. Precisely how these two are connected remains, for many, a mystery.<br /><br />While pondering this question recently, the image of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs popped into my awareness and I began to play with it. As most will recall, Abraham Maslow attempted to create a model for psychological health. He posited that there is a hierarchy of needs that human beings have. These start with base survival needs (such as food, shelter and warmth), move into subtler needs (such as love, belongingness and self-esteem) and eventually end up in transformative needs, such as self-actualization and transcendence. He referred to the lower needs as “D-needs” or deficiency needs and “B-needs” or being needs. The D-needs are fulfilled out of a sense of basic drives and, if they are not met, the vacuum is felt acutely. B-needs are far less compelling and meeting them is largely optional. If they are not met, the individual may feel a sense of disquiet, but individuals need not pursue these for survival or even contentment.<br /><br />As we ponder the higher levels of need – needs for self-actualization and transcendence – it seems that the pursuit of meeting these needs is what many people mean by leading a spiritual life. Those individuals who develop disciplines in these areas and consistently seek to explore these aspects of their lives are often said to have spiritual disciplines.<br /><br />At the other end of the pyramid, something very interesting emerges as we ponder the question of ethics. It seems that creating situations which impair or potentially impair the ability of others to meet these basic needs is clearly immoral. For example, stealing is wrong because it threatens the individual’s ability to meet basic needs. Adultry is wrong because it alienates one from a fundamental source of love and affection. Denying health care seems wrong because it threatens physical survival and also a persons need to feel safe and secure. For those with some subtlety in their ethical analysis, we would say that stealing from a poor person is more reprehensible than stealing from someone who is wealthy because of the increased risk to that the poor person will be unable to meet basic needs.<br /><br />Finally, we would say that the person who goes out of her way to provide for the basic needs of others is a highly ethical person. The person who gives their time or funds to feed the hungry, house the homeless or ensure basic liberties for those who have few legal or social protections, are held up as models of ethical behavior. Those who give self-sacrificially to meet these types of needs are seen not merely as ethical people, but as highly spiritual people, particularly where this type of self-sacrifice is seen not as motivated by pathology but out of a sense of psychological abundance.<br /><br />The notion that spirituality and ethics is tied together by human need provides the possibility of bridging the gap between contemplative life and the life of the activist. Seeking to meet the basic needs of others is the heart of activism, seeking to meet the growth needs of self is spirituality. Thus, spirituality and ethics are flip sides of the same coin.<br /><br />In looking more deeply at the higher order needs, Maslow noted that, at these stages, effort is required to keep B-needs alive and engaged. There is a point at which people who are seeking to reach their fuller potentials will become self-motivated and create a positive loop that will continually feed the need for further growth. One of the principal ways in which that that cycle can become self-perpetuating is through a concerted and sustained effort to meet the D-needs of others. This focus on others can become a prime driver in the process of self-actualization. Indeed, to do so in healthy ways requires that the B-needs be addressed. Those who become lost in meeting the D-needs of others, without boundaries or a healthy sense of ego protection, are quickly burned out and diminished. Conversely, those who simply seek to meet B-needs find it difficult to sustain motivation, particularly in early stages of B-need development.<br /><br />While it is clearly possible to engage in meeting B-needs without affirmative ethical behavior (i.e. intentionally seeking to meet lower level needs in others), one could argue that a person seeking to fully self-actualize and do so as effectively as possible, will engage in deeply ethical behavior that stresses not merely doing no harm but actually seeking opportunities to do good for others. Thus, commitment to justice and compassion fosters spiritual growth.<br /><br /> © 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-85949502879151347922007-09-12T06:40:00.000-07:002007-09-16T15:16:41.878-07:00Implementing the Plan<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGTrRxL447KZQSCKKYzK8NR_sVAHqHWVPJZN6VhboNU8qwkHaWZa_TW7WawV_ZPsBSVfVdRqnuQ76hffeLUmUguM1pBr-MsQk6K59mNLty9tfJQsqNMMABcsADvHBPxorEICcYX2lHnpU/s1600-h/blueprint.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5109312944880901218" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGTrRxL447KZQSCKKYzK8NR_sVAHqHWVPJZN6VhboNU8qwkHaWZa_TW7WawV_ZPsBSVfVdRqnuQ76hffeLUmUguM1pBr-MsQk6K59mNLty9tfJQsqNMMABcsADvHBPxorEICcYX2lHnpU/s200/blueprint.jpg" border="0" /></a> <div><strong><span style="color:#000066;">Introduction</span></strong></div><div></div><div><br />This is the final installment on the series Bullfrogs in Wheelbarrows. Here we get to the level of implementing our plan. The work of any church can be divided into two basic parts – maintenance and ministry. The maintenance side is all about meeting the needs of the organization. Any organization requires a certain amount of effort simply to keep the organization afloat. In a church this means that you need a finance committee, a building and grounds committee, a stewardship committee and perhaps one or two others. These are important ministries in themselves and should be see as such. Folks in these committees are real servants to the entire community and it is their work that allows the church to continue to exist. However, if you compare the needs you identified in the strategic plan to the committee structure that you have, probably not one of committees on the maintenance side would be reflected. Thus it is important to differentiate between an individual ministry (which may be to serve on the Finance Committee) and the ministry of the church, which is to meet needs of individuals, families and the community at large.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#000066;">Overhead and Human Capital</span></strong></div><div><br />If you considered maintenance of the organization as “overhead”, you would almost certainly want to allocate only a small percentage of your resources to that effort. The vast bulk of your efforts would be spent in actually doing the work of the business. Perhaps the most valuable asset that a church has is its people and the commitment, creativity, imagination and hard work that they put into making the church a viable place. These hours of time are a form of “capital” that must be stewarded. Thus a significant goal would be to decrease the volunteer hour “overhead” that goes into maintaining the organization and increasing the amount that goes to meeting the needs of individuals, families and the broader community.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#000066;">Structural Alignment</span></strong><br /><br />So let’s look at your existing committee structure. Take out two sheets of paper and create three columns. Title the first two Maintenance and Ministry, respectively. List your existing committees under each column. Under the third column list the Needs from your strategic plan. (as outlined in the last <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-has-been-dark-for-couple-of-days.html">article</a>). Now draw lines from each need to the committee that is meeting that need. What is the overlap?<br /><br />On your second sheet of paper, reorganize your church so that each need has a group of people that is meeting that need. Some needs may be subdivided, but the idea is that we are focusing on the needs and the needs are driving structure, not the other way around. On the Maintenance side of the chart, put the minimum number of people necessary to do that job. For example, some churches have found that a committee of 1 is sufficient for finance if it is the right person and there is good oversight. This is an important number to keep in mind as think about all of the work that must be done in the church Many churches are finding that committees work well on the Maintenance side of the chart, but that the committee model carries too much baggage to work well on the Ministry side. One option to consider would be to have Ministry Teams that are focused on a need with a steering committee of a couple of team members who actually meet to discuss the coordination of the work of the team.<br /><br />Now the ministry teams or committees are charged with meeting the need based on the strategic plan’s statement. The Board can take its hands off and the creativity and imagination of the people on those teams can simply go to town on meeting those needs. These committees or ministry teams can look at the need, at the statement in the strategic plan, go to work to meet that need as it sees fit. The Board exists to monitor issues as they arise and, in rare cases, to intervene if groups need to be called back to task.<br /><br />Now you have structure that allows for maximization of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">chaordic</span> nature of the church. It is now powered from the periphery but unified at the core; it is based on clarity of share purpose and principles; it enables and empowers its constituent parts; it is durable in purpose, but malleable in form and function; it has distributed power, rights and responsibility; it should liberate and amplify ingenuity, initiative and judgment; it is compatible with and fosters diversity, complexity and change; and it restrains power and embeds authority in persons vested with accomplishing the tasks.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#000066;">A Side Note on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Giftedness</span> </span></strong></div><strong><span style="color:#000066;"></span></strong><br /><p>In the early Christian church, there was a recognition that people have different roles to play in the life of a church. They saw these roles as "charisma" or "gifts" given by God to individuals and the community. These gifts were part of what made individuals feel special and connected to the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">community</span>, gave them a sense of purpose and that they were a valued and important contributor. From what I have seen in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">UU</span> churches, we don't focus on this much. I think that is a shame. Clearly the gifts and talents that we have are diverse and many of us can serve the church in a variety of ways, but my guess is that most of us have a place where we feel most productive and most useful to our community and where the work most fulfills us. Any <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">chaordic</span> organization should take than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">giftedness</span> into account and, perhaps. as a church, it might not be a a bad idea to a bit more "charismatic" in the sense of empowering people to do what they are good at and what has heart and meaning for them. This sense of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">giftedness</span> is often what moves our contributions of time and effort from being "work" to "play". </p><p><strong><span style="color:#000066;">Conclusion </span></strong></p><p>At the end of this process we have come to creating a model that </p><br />1. Accounts for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">chaordic</span> nature of most <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">UU</span> churches<br />2. Ties every aspect of the organization in meeting basic needs.<br />3. Provides clarity to each person in the organization.<br />4. Creates an empowering and effective construct for meeting the real needs of people.<br /><br />I hope that this has been helpful. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have.<br /><br />If you want to start this series from the beginning, go to <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/bullfrogs-in-wheelbarrows.html.">Bullfrogs in Wheelbarrows</a>.<br /><br />© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-10597427691471467122007-09-08T13:48:00.000-07:002007-09-26T06:56:55.995-07:00Planning: Undoing the Gordian Knot<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGMcg-R50OC4PTNUrkQ9TOCIuscOcSDz-Cbbq9REM9kNWvFfwhA9D76nPdznLEywWLYassSnXJOVTzuo1fXwcU326WUvuQVKjvRfF6jGKouCeH298g2WlyiHnp92qlVqVBFzNl0Vssino/s1600-h/Celtic-knot-from-January.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5107953987127166450" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="157" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGMcg-R50OC4PTNUrkQ9TOCIuscOcSDz-Cbbq9REM9kNWvFfwhA9D76nPdznLEywWLYassSnXJOVTzuo1fXwcU326WUvuQVKjvRfF6jGKouCeH298g2WlyiHnp92qlVqVBFzNl0Vssino/s200/Celtic-knot-from-January.gif" width="159" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="color:#333399;">INTRODUCTION</span></strong></p><p>The blog has been dark for a couple of days, but not for want of trying. This one has been hard to write. It is all about untying the knot that often exists around mission statements and strategic plans. I have been wrestling with a couple of issues: first the traditional <a href="http://www.chaordic.org/cd_process_activities.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">choardic</span></span> “lenses</a>” used for planning don’t fit the needs of a church quite as well as they do other types of organizations I have worked with; second, they have never been as clear as some other models I have used, and, finally, I suspect that they <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">over complicate</span> the problem. To that end, I<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUTgbuTl1a7q07vhEHyhbn8HoPApoXmn9a8Xmn3XY4ICselzD9xze_jdUA7Swkps4Y_7uIoETPlGTHBUgYI6HuGasegLhLmy9yKASjKRQNH3vqnDS5Z4BmAnb1b21Xod__al2KpHXz9I0/s1600-h/Inner-Outer.png"></a> am working to integrate the ideas embedded into the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">chaordic</span></span> lenses into a workable framework for a church. </p><p><strong><span style="color:#333399;">PART I: THE MISSION STATEMENT</span></strong><br /><br />Why does everyone groan when the topic of a mission statement comes up? One simple reason - it is a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">paaaain</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">ful</span> process. The task forces shanghaied to do this work often take an inordinate amount of time and expend great effort, most often based on the unsupportable belief that it a mission statement is so central to the church, it requires painstaking care to develop and create. I have seen committees wrestle for months or even a full year on a mission statement. Often surveys are taken or there are extensive interviews. A lot of research happens. There is lots of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">wordsmithing</span></span> and focus on individual words <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">freighted</span> with meaning. At the end of the day, the statement is usually bloodless, it appears in print periodically and most people forget it. Certainly no one ever uses it. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Moreover</span>, because new or fringe people <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">didn</span></span>’t labor over every word, they do not get all of the subtle meanings conveyed by the statement. This same sort of complicated process often occurs with strategic planning. Committees, surveys, church meetings and all sorts of effort can go into creating the strategic plan. A <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">church</span> can spend way to much time talking about what it is going to do rather than doing it. Moreover, the marginal improvement on the mission statement based on this time commitment is mot much better than one that could have been created less than an hour.<br /><br />Fortunately it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">doesn</span></span>’t have to be that hard. You can arrive at a mission statement and strategic plan very, very <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">quickly</span> if you have a handle on some basic principles and know how to structure the meeting. If done properly, everyone in the room already has all of the information they need to create the statement and the plan. Church groups are, by their very nature, pretty <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">homogeneous</span> in terms of the attitudes, beliefs and values of the people who have gathered. Not only that, but they know each other and have history together. That type of solidarity makes <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">creating</span> the mission statement and the strategic plan pretty simple.</p><p>So here is the recipe for a mission statement: </p><ol><li><em>Gather</em> your Board, minister and Committee on Ministry and, if you like, the chairs of your various committees. Do a check in and a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting -that is: To come up with a mission statement for the church. If any important stakeholder groups are not represented in the group, make sure that you invite one or two from those groups.</li><li><em>Identify</em> the ten or so biggest needs that the church meets in the lives of its parishioners and in the world. (Note is is important to figure out what needs the church is meeting in the world beyond its four walls.) Don't spend a lot of time on this - when it seems you are simply refining the list, it is time to stop. Given the people in the room, it will be accurate enough. </li><li><em>Narrow </em>that list of ten or so down to at most four. This is usually done by grouping like things together and coming up with a word for each of those clusters of needs. For example, Connection, Significance, and Personal Growth. This part is fun, and now you have a very clear idea as to why your church exists! It is there to meet those needs in your lives and in the life of your community. </li><li><em>Craft</em> a simple, simple statement that a reasonably intelligent fourth grader would be able to understand and repeat to tell the world why your church is there. For example based on the above words, you could end up with something like this: “We are a people connected to each other and the world around us, a people who seek to make a significant difference by thought, word and deed, and who seek to fulfill our human potential individually and collectively." Yours will be more artful because it will be a group effort and it will grow organically from your discussion.</li><li><em><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Congratulate</span></em> yourself on coming up with a mission statement and break out the champagne. The only trick now is to use it almost ever Sunday – recite it in the words of gathering, the chalice lighting, prior to the offering whenever it makes sense in your community (though it should be ritualistically included almost always in the same spot in the order of service). You should decide as a group where in the service this will go. Get to the point that everyone who is committed to the community has memorized it and everyone who is new hears it when they visit. </li></ol><p><strong><span style="color:#333399;">PART II: THE <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">STRATEGIC</span> PLAN</span></strong><br /><br />If you have time in your meeting, you can go on to do the strategic plan. There are two parts to the strategic plan: the work you must do because of your size and the work that is your own because of the particular nature of your community.<br /><br />Prior to this phase of the meeting it is important that people understand the different sizes of church (Cell/Family/Pastoral/Program/Corporate/Mega) and the characteristics of each one. You orient them by having everyone read something before they come or have someone prepared to present on these stages and their most important traits. Have some discussion until there is a consensus in the room as to what size of a church you have. It should not be an option to say that you are sort of this size and sort of that size...you have to land in the type that you most closely resemble. (Remember your church type is more like probability cloud than rungs on a ladder - if you are a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">pastoral</span> sized church, it is likely that 10-20% of your structure and patterns of relating are similar to a family sized church and about the same percentage is reflects a program sized church.)<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#333399;">A. The Work You Have to Do<br /></span></strong><br />The work you have to do is based on the size of the church you are. For example if a pastoral sized church is all about communication, leadership and incorporating new people, you have to include a statement in your strategic plan about each of these areas. For more information, click <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/getting-frogs-into-wheelbarrow.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Next you are going to ask yourselves some questions. First you want to know what your church would be like if it was firing on all cylinders in each of the areas you have to be focused on in a church of your size. Here you want to ask 1) What would it feel like? 2) What would it look like? 3) What structures would be in place behind the scenes? 4) What are the values that drive this? These are the questions of the individual, the behavioral, the structural, and the cultural from the last article. Discuss these questions. Everyone should be taking notes at this point to remember important parts of the discussion.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#333399;">The Goals That Are Your Own.</span></strong><br /><br />Now we come to the stuff your church should do.<br /><br />Looking above, you recall that you identified the three or four basic needs your church meets. In our hypothetical church, the needs were: Connection. Significance. Personal Growth. Again you want to ask what it would be like if the church as firing on all cylinders. Again you want to ask: </p><ul><li>What would it feel like? </li><li>What would it look like?</li><li>What structures would be in place behind the scenes?</li><li>What are the values that drive this? </li></ul>These are the questions of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">psychology</span>, behavior, the structure, and the culture from the <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/unruly-organization.html">last article</a> and can be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">diagramed</span> like this:<br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5107952105931490786" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkTtQ1eIVFn3tDbpcz2Iv1CnbNbzgVzriGxzbK1-0c0zVEG-bTPRiJQSswWAm9miC-QgIJQ7mrTKbHAAd-C2KNgWzpfBqajCWhCghA5246mg7NYsolSt7NWlMvrCzP96uUPUsJpkk13ds/s200/Inner-Outer.png" border="0" /><br />You could even use this diagram in your discussion. Put the major need on top and the observations to each question in each quadrant.<br /><br /><p></p><p></p><p>The next question is the hard one: What negative feelings, behaviors, structures or values are we dealing with that keep us from embodying the ideal we just articulated? It is time to get really honest. This is the shadow side of the church community and perhaps even a few individuals in it. Unless you deal with it the plan has no chance of success.</p><p><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Creating Your Plan.</span></strong></p><p>You should now have 3 or 4 areas that arise from the nature of the size of your church and 3 or 4 that are based on the needs you meet among yourselves and in your community.<br /><br />After you discuss each area in turn, you can then begin to structure your strategic plan. This a great time to break into small groups and give each group the task of writing up one of the needs that must be met to progress and the one that is specific to your church and the needs your church in particular meets in its current and potential members. Using the area of “Connection” from above, you might come up with the following: </p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="color:#330000;">We want each person to feel deeply connected to at least a few others in the church, connected to the mission of the church, and that they are doing something constructive to make the world a better place. We want to have this type of compassion and concern as a core value and will design specific pathways to<br />that end. We will support a culture that encourages connection by creating structures that allow us to meet in different kinds of settings and cause us to deepen our connections. As much as possible, we, as leaders will commit to modeling behavior that is supportive of creating connection both in terms of what we do and what we refrain from doing. We give one another permission to remind us of this goal. As a community, we recognize that one of the things that tears at our ability to create connection is unkind criticism of others behind their backs. We resolve to change that behavior in constructive ways. </span></p></blockquote><p>Note that this statement contains what you hope people will feel based on shared values with an eye toward culture and structure and a discussion of behavior. (In other words it address all four quadrants.) It also identifies the shadow and how you hope to deal with it. </p><p>It is critical to identify how you want people to feel, because is the connection between their need and the church structure and programing that is absolutely critical to their commitment to and involvement with the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">church</span>. </p><p>The last thing to do is to have each group add a matrix for measuring success for their group's portion of the plan. Every plan must have some tools to measure <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">progress</span>. The measurement tool should have a way of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">gauging</span> the feelings of the individuals, the behavior of the community, the creation of successful structures and the growth in values. For some of these, before and after questions or surveys are almost always useful. There are other creative ways to do this as well.</p><p>To bring this to a close, you would then bring the groups back together to simply share their work. No comments, no judgments, just sharing.<br /><br />You now have the backbone of your strategic plan. The next step is to get a small group of volunteers together to edit the statements created by the various groups and circulate it for comment to the people at the meeting and others. </p><p>Now that was painless and fun and it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">didn</span></span>’t take six months. What a relief. Let’s move on to implementing the strategic plan.</p><p>If you jumped into the middle of this discussion, you can begin at <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/bullfrogs-in-wheelbarrows.html">Bullfrogs In Wheelbarrows</a>.</p><p>© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</p>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775311567625346881.post-53543973716677042742007-09-05T00:06:00.000-07:002007-09-08T15:57:02.518-07:00Unruly Organizations<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqGz38_w9IVyAwZTbBUGje1xLq_Xx66Hp1ahrd6XsAN9d2zoTlA-enplURCbPl7SdW8v3xGsuvlW-UTZ30Ooz-uTWEw4xTy006Er-01RYvF7RkEyIO6sedb1A_hpNNoHP5eMSySEeF6vY/s1600-h/Sharing.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5107970703139882530" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqGz38_w9IVyAwZTbBUGje1xLq_Xx66Hp1ahrd6XsAN9d2zoTlA-enplURCbPl7SdW8v3xGsuvlW-UTZ30Ooz-uTWEw4xTy006Er-01RYvF7RkEyIO6sedb1A_hpNNoHP5eMSySEeF6vY/s200/Sharing.png" border="0" /></a><strong><span style="font-family:arial;color:#333399;">Introduction</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#333399;"></span></strong><br />Before we look at the specifics of managing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">chaordic</span></span> organization, it is important to dig into and understand some important aspects of the churches and unruly organizations. We like to think that if we simply find the right rules or structures or hit upon just the right formula, we will have a church that works. Unfortunately, churches are inherently messy. The share many of traits common to social groups. Now there are many ways of looking at social groups, but one that I particularly like and find very useful is set out below. I believe that understanding these concepts will help as we move into the discussion of managing a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">chaordic</span></span> organization.<br /><br /><span style="color:#333399;"><strong>Social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Holons</span></span></strong></span><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler">Arther Koestler </a>coined the term <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">holon</span></a></span>. A <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">holon</span></span> is a system that is a whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system. This has direct applicability to churches. There is a truth that is so basic it will seem childish – but it is a critically important concept to truly internalize and understand.<br /><em></em><br /><div><div><div align="center"><em>A church is system comprised of individuals</em>. </div><br />The individuals in the church are one type of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">holon</span></span> and and the church itself is quite another and how these two interact is as the heart of virtually every issue facing any church. Let's explore this difference and its implications.<br /><br />The human beings in the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">church</span> could be considered sentient <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">holons</span></span>. A living being is made of up constituent parts – atoms, molecules, cells, organs and so on. Let’s take a goose for example. If the goose flies away, virtually ever part of the goose moves with it – except perhaps a couple of feathers. The constituent parts of the system do not get a vote in what happens. A sentient <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">holon</span></span> acts as one unit.<br /><br />Contrast this with a social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">holon</span>. Compared to the sentient geese <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">holons</span></span>, the flock of geese is an very different type of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">holon</span></span>. Geese flock together because it serves a purpose. If it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">didn</span></span>’t serve a purpose, the organization simply <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">wouldn</span></span>’t exist. Every goose in the flock knows why it is there and what its role is. It also recognizes its own kind – geese don’t flock with deer. A fancy way to say this is that there is a common “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">inter-subjective</span>"reality of "goose-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">ness</span>" that all geese share. However, there are times when, for whatever reason, some geese will drop out of a flock and let the others go on. Each individual <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">holon</span> with thin the group is self-existent, autonomous and, in higher order animals, self-determining. This type of system could be called a “social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">holon</span>.</span>” Sentient and social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">holons</span> are found throughout nature. They are built into the fabric of our world and they function in remarkably <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">analogous</span> ways up and down the chain of life.<br /><br />This brings us to the critical point - every social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">holon</span></span> exists as an aggregate of individual <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">holons</span></span> held together by 1) the internal motivations or drives of the individuals in the group, 2) the gathering of the individuals in a physical environment which will support them as a group, 3) a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">discernable</span></span> structure to their relationships, and 4) an “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">intersubjective</span></span>” commonality – what could be called a culture. If any one of these pieces goes too badly wrong, the social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">holon</span></span> simply ceases to exist. In the animal world, the creation of social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">holons</span> is largely driven by biology and instinct. In humans, it is driven by biology, instinct and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">self</span>-r<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">eflective</span></span> consciousness. That self-reflective consciousness means that human beings have the ability to create intentional social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">holons</span></span>.<br /><br />Thus, every human social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">holon</span></span> has four critically important aspects.<br /><br /><ul><li>The individuals that comprise it. </li><li>The physical resources and characteristics of the collective. </li><li>The structural organization of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">gatherine</span>. </li><li>The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">intersubjective</span></span> cultural perspective the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">individuals</span> share.</li></ul><p>To map this, it might look like this: </p><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5106610834889590178" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLyOJvAtfMvMT7IdO5cQQKrBVAYDU4wvOdMq-bkLSuwXzVAgNELLDeyY3_rIYkYjQXeiliG-A4T3DOgpVOnBOHaSk2zkyjjD-tzmnl6eyCFWi_oOc8KzdmnKGwF3iRNZH4g18ANfS8_eo/s200/Quadrant+Diagram+1.png" border="0" /></p><p>A successful <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">chaordic</span></span> organization must function well in each of these four quadrants. Functioning well means different things in each quadrant.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Individuals</span></strong><br /><br />For the social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">holon</span></span> to survive, enough individuals within the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">holon</span></span> must be getting what they need from the group. It is vitally important that leaders understand both the stated and unstated needs that drive the individuals within the group. Almost all groups have both stated shadow reasons that bring people together. For example, a stated reason might be to change the world. A shadow reason might be that people are getting enthused by the drama of the community. Both may be true and that is OK as long as everyone is clear what is going on and dealing with the darker underbelly. Thus, leaders have to ask deep questions that uncover the authentic motivations that people in the community hold in common.<br /><br />These conversations require a lot of self inquiry and real honesty. It is hard for someone to say about themselves, “You know, I came from an alcoholic family and one of the reasons I am part of this system is because it meets my need for chaos.” Or “I am a fearful person and change terrifies me and I know that the reason I am part of this church is because it is simply set up not to change. I can count on it being stagnate” Doing this shadow work as a church is absolutely essential. When any social organization is stuck in bad patterns, it is almost always these shadow motivations that are to blame. People are getting something out of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">stuckness</span> or the social <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">holon</span> would simply fall apart or change.<br /><br />The great thing about being authentic in this way is that you can identify one or two dominant themes on the shadow side. By identifying them, and giving them a name and voice, you automatically empower yourself to recognize the dynamic at work. More importantly, these shadow sides also contain tremendous constructive energy in groups. They can be turned into positives. For example, if you have a church that seems to thrive on chaos, you can turn that into a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">postive</span> part of the mission of the church For example, you might officially recognize that part of the purpose of the church is to be enthusiastically engaged it vital change. If you have a church that is fearful of change, you can state that one of your goals will be to make the church a safe, stable place and sanctuary for everyone who enters its doors. Either is a completely valid choice and either is clearly appropriate for that stage in the church’s life because that is the shadow side that it absolutely must deal with to fulfill its purpose for existence. The church that takes either of these roads is making decisions about what kind of a church it will be and the kind of people it will attract. The important thing is to be honest not only with your aspirational goals, but also with the shadow goals. Once you are honest, you can make progress.<br /><br />Note: Ideally each leader is asking themselves these questions on a personal level. All of us participate for mixed motives and understanding what those motives are will help us engage authentically and mindfully with the community as a whole.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Environmental</span></strong><br /><br />Every church has a physical location, certain resources, and a collection of individuals who are already there. You can point to things in the world and say that these particular people and things are the outward manifestations of the church. It is important to recognize that these physical realities do put real constraints on a church. Indeed, most church leaders are painfully aware of these constraints and often these constraints drive decisions. That does not have to be the case, but it is foolish to ignore them and it will put certain constraints on what the organization can do.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Structural</span></strong><br /><br />A church is typically comprised of a series of structures. The people in the group are organized in certain ways. There are almost always formal structures (such as governance bodies, committees, task forces, RE classes, and so on). There are also the informal structures which consist of friendships, informal groups and thought leaders. How these work together can have a tremendous impact on whether the church is doing well or not. You might have every official group of the church headed in one direction and one informal group that is working against it and as a result, you have major problems. Understanding these structural issues is essential to managing a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">chaordic</span></span> organization. Structures must fit the organization and further, not impede, its purposes.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Cultural</span></strong><br /><br />The church is comprised of principles and values that create the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">intersubjective</span></span> shared values. This has to do with the way members treat each other and the norms and rules that govern interaction. Who is included and excluded and what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. Here the question is what is appropriate and inappropriate. Again, there will be express values and shadow values. For example, we might espouse to be a loving community, but the cultural norms tolerate unkind criticism.</p><p>Obviously much more could be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">written</span> about each of these but I believe, we have introduced the concepts sufficiently to move on. </p><p> </p><p>In our next piece, <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-has-been-dark-for-couple-of-days.html">Planning: There's the Hard Way Then There's the Easy Way</a>, we will look at the way <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">chaordic</span></span> organizations become successfully self-organizing an self-governing.</p><p>To start this series at the beginning, go to <a href="http://nakedsamadhi.blogspot.com/2007/09/bullfrogs-in-wheelbarrows.html">Bullfrogs In Wheelbarrows</a>.</p><p>© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.</p></div></div>Matt Wesleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01356676011562583385noreply@blogger.com0