Progressive Christianity embracing Contemplative Christianity?

Richard Rohr (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not that this hasn't happened before, although many contemplative Christians are rightly worried about being labeled into any kind of theological or political pigeon hole. After all, folks like Fr. Richard Rohr who focus on the contemplative dimensions of Christianity sure sound somewhat progressive; but he and others are concerned about the danger of labels as rough description becoming labels as ideological straightjackets.

In any case, it can only be a good thing for those who espouse post-modernist, liberal, or progressive Christianity to seriously embrace contemplative prayer, meditation, and the like. The big danger for the progressives is to try to make everything into an intellectualized symbol or metaphor in opposition to a literalized interpretation. It reduces the power of wonder and mystery to the neurological correlates and psychological effects of wonder and mystery.

In other words, it's just the progressive counter-point to the fundamentalist view but is still based primarily or entirely on "left-brain consciousness". The idea of simply being with the poetic imagery, the mythical narrative, and the like, being immediately open to it and within it and experiencing it directly, becomes unavailable. The fact that you may at one instance react to a scriptural passage or hymn or prayer on a literal level, and at another instance symbolic, or at other times seeing it with both perspectives at once, and at still other times the experience is so direct there is no discrimination or analysis at all, is only available when the intuitive, holistic, or "right-brain consciousness" is also honored and permitted.

The result is that the religious elements are cleaned up to strictly secular, modernistic standards, with nothing that sounds like superstition or supernaturalism, which is basically how left-brain consciousness mixed with cynicism sees the spiritual--as full of idiotic or ignorant woo. This is because the fundamentalists, who try to take the spiritual seriously but do so in a left-brain way, turn the spiritual into idiotic or ignorant woo. To outsiders, it's all assumed to just be the same, and progressive Christians are tempted to disavow the whole lot and make their religious heritage into harmless little stories that no one should really take too seriously.

God is form (the immanence of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.


There is a quite a bit of discussion in Western Buddhism about form and emptiness, as these concepts are featured prominently in the Heart Sutra which in turn has a close association with Zen. This invites comparisons between the Buddhist teaching of non-duality and the concepts of transcendence and immanence. The emphasis today is on form.

Form seems simple enough, given the Western emphasis on materialism. Everything that exists can be reduced to some measurable form of matter or energy, so form is anything composed of these things. Many English-language books on Buddhism use this frame of reference as an analogy to explain emptiness by pointing to subtler and subtler forms of energy until one gets to the fuzzy level of what has been dubbed the quantum field (or in some versions the quantum foam), which itself is compared to emptiness.

This can be misleading as it places the emphasis on an external process rooted in a strictly materialist paradigm. It is fine as an analogy, but prudence suggests it is risky and and unnecessary to draw a direct equivalence. Form is a phenomenological concept that precedes any explanation of the basis of what is being described. Form is, in a sense, anything which can be described and is hence born of discrimination and labeling by the mind. Feeling, intuitions, imaginings, logical musings, judgements, and the like are forms as much as tables, chairs, and chew bones.

In other words, whatever mind is or isn't, wherever and however mind originates, it is itself the origin of form.

Wrestling with traditional Christian scripture and prayers

So here's the thing.

There are many wonderful people who have come to such profound insight into the Divine, and through this to a solidarity with the core insights of other religions, by practicing with traditional Christian scriptures and prayers.  They have inspired me, and I mention them often: Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Thomas Keating, Fr. Richard Rohr, Fr. Bede Griffiths, Br. Wayne Teasdale, Br. David Steindl-Rast (to name a few).  So for reasons discussed elsewhere I joined a politically tolerant, theologically inspirational Episcopal parish with a strong anglo-catholic flavor ("high church liturgy"). The Anglicans, including the Episcopal Church, recommend their version of the Daily Office to both priests and laity alike, religious and secular.  So this sounds like a good idea.  Many in the Anglican tradition simply don't do any of the Daily Offices at all, let alone on a regular basis.  And when they do go to Mass, the reading from the Psalter (the Psalms) tends to be edited so that the harsh portions are left out.  So I will offer some background on my views as well as examples of why this practice hasn't been working out as well as I had initially hoped.

It should be recalled that I see no reason to defend the Bible as something it isn't but rather to appreciate it for what it is.  It is an attempt to record people's understanding of their encounter with the Divine Mystery.  This means appreciating things such as historical and cultural context in the use of language and thus not missing the point of why something was phrased a particular way rather than assuming it would have been said the exact same way if it were written today.  Otherwise much of the power of the texts is muted and we risk misunderstanding that can be profoundly damaging. The necessary process of maintaining the vitality of such texts and their commentaries produces a perpetual tension between between received wisdom through tradition and insights from ongoing revelation.  I don't have any need to deny that there is all manner of ugliness recorded in the Bible, often framed as the will of God, nor should anyone be surprised to find such things.  The human path to peace and wisdom is filled with wrong turns and dead ends because of our shortcomings and poor choices.  Our hearts, the deepest parts of our selves, are often hard, narrow, and crowded, which causes plenty of distortion in discerning who God is and what God wants.

Benediction for 1/28/11

From Father Richard Rohr:

Every person has to come to the God experience on their own.  Conversion is a foundational change in life position and perspective and, finally, one’s very identity.  After the transformation God is not out there any more.  You don’t look at God as a separate identity; you look out from God who lives in you and through you and with you.  That is a major shift, probably the most major shift possible for humans.

(To which I say, OK, but how long am I supposed to wait for that? What am I missing/doing wrong? This is touched on later in the same quote, included below)

It is happening inside of you and all God needs is your “yes” and your participation. It is likely the hardest yes you will ever utter, because your years of habit will all shout “not possible,” “not me,” and “not worthy.”

Benediction for 12/31/10

From a daily email from the Center for Action and Contemplation...

If we try to make the church into the kingdom of God, we create a false idol that will disappoint us.  If we try to make the world itself into the kingdom, we will always be resentful when it does not come through.  If we make a later heaven into the kingdom, we miss most of its transformative message for now.  We are not waiting for the coming of an ideal church or any perfect world here and now, or even for the next world.  The kingdom is more than all of these.  It is always here and not here.  It is always now and not yet.  No institution can encompass it.  That is rather clear in the texts where Jesus describes the kingdom.

All false religion proceeds in a certain sense from one illusion.  When people say piously, “Thy kingdom come” out of one side of their mouth, they need also to say, “My kingdom go!” out of the other side.  The kingdom of God supersedes and far surpasses all kingdoms of self and society or personal reward.

--Adapted from Preparing for Christmas with Richard Rohr

Follow Jesus or worship Christ?

Some would immediately answer "neither". You may be one of them, but you might still be interested in this question because how others answer it may affect you anyway.

For others, this seems like a false choice. Why is it even a question? Why can't it be both? Again, this distinction may not apply to you but if you are someone who would choose "both", you may be especially interested in those who emphasize or only select one answer over the other.

But where does such a question come from anyway? And what do we do with it? What does it mean, for example, when someone labels herself or himself as a "follower of Jesus" as opposed to a "Christian"?