Apr 14, 2012 -- 8:13AM, WaveringCC wrote:

Actually, the book is not rooted in Episcopal thought, but is written from the viewpoint of an evangelical Protestant with no formational experience in either liturgy or the "ancient practices" the book discusses. The book was recommended by the new Bishop of EDOW. But, one of the things I most like about the Episcopal church is that it is open to learning - it has the humility to understand that it is not infallible and so does not close its ecclesial mind to the viewpoints and insights of others as does the RCC.  The RCC closes off all discussion and silences many of its most insightful and creative thinkers.  Merton was one of those and he was beginning to get into a lot of hot water with the PTB when he died, so was never officially silenced.

Is SBNR really an oxymoron? I attend an Episcopal church, but if pressed, would probably say at this time in my life that I am SBNR.  The rapid growth of those identifying as SBNR seems to be a backlash to the overemphasis of organized religion on control - mind control, thought control - not just the RCC but many christian and non-christian religions. Do the SBNR sense that religion is simply a tool that can help one on the spiritual journey-  that it can be a guide in the spiritual journey, but one that must be left behind when organized religion begins to see itself as the center, pointing to itself instead of to the moon.  What is it all about, really? It's about relationship - first with God, which is the foundation for all other relationships. Spirituality is about that relationship and the way to live as Christ did. Religion, especially in the RCC, is all a head game - it's all about believing fallible men and "obeying" men instead of God.  Many SBNR understand, if only intuitively, that when religion becomes an obstacle in the journey instead of a help, it's best to find a different way.

All of the mainline Protestant religions, along with the Baptists and many evangelical churches have joined the RCC in their concern over the dropout rate from organized religion. The "emerging church" movement which is rooted in evangelical Protestantism is an attempt to address that dropout rate - sometimes by integrating traditional religious practices with more "new agey" kinds of practices.  I find it fascinating and amusing at times that the evangelicals have discovered monastic practices - the "new monasticism" is part of this "emerging church" movement.  It will be interesting to see where it all leads. 

If it doesn't lead to more $$$ in the collection plate for the evangelical churches they'll drop it like a hot potato. And if it doesn't lead to greater book sales for the evangelical author, he will too. These guys are all about the $$$. Oh yeah, and political power, too. 

Thanks, Gilg.  I appreciate your response because I am actually more interested in discussing the spirituality/religion issue, their relationship, balance between the two, etc than I am interested in discussing megachurches or TV pastors raking in millions. 

What do you think about Peter Senge's comments on the bookstore sales - that books on "spirituality" are only outsold by the "get rich" books (interesting factoid right there) and that books on Buddhism outsell those on Christianity.  Senge said (from post #1) -

"I think it's because Buddhism presents itself as a way of life, and Christianity presents itself as a system of belief. So I would want to get Christian ministers thinking about how to rediscover their own faith as a way of life, because that's what people are searching for today." 

I brought up McLaren's book (is he a tV pastor? I had never heard of him before, unlike Schuller and Warren and Osteen) because he holds on to this premise in discussing the "ancient practices" in his book - that christianity needs to start addressing the apparent desire of the SBNR to find a way to live (Buddhism is really a philosophy - describing a way to live - not a religion and definitely not one focused on "belief") rather than being so overly focused on "what to believe."  Heresy is a christian concept, and it's all about "belief" rather than about a "way to live."

Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:11PM, WaveringCC wrote:

I brought up McLaren's book (is he a tV pastor? I had never heard of him before, unlike Schuller and Warren and Osteen) because he holds on to this premise in discussing the "ancient practices" in his book - that christianity needs to start addressing the apparent desire of the SBNR to find a way to live (Buddhism is really a philosophy - describing a way to live - not a religion and definitely not one focused on "belief") rather than being so overly focused on "what to believe."  Heresy is a christian concept, and it's all about "belief" rather than about a "way to live."

What makes people think that "the SBNR" are looking for a way to live, especially looking to Christian churches or Buddhist temples? ISTM they have abandoned formal religion and group practices and are basically doing their own thing. 

Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:11PM, WaveringCC wrote:

[snip]

I brought up McLaren's book (is he a tV pastor? I had never heard of him before, unlike Schuller and Warren and Osteen) because he holds on to this premise in discussing the "ancient practices" in his book - that christianity needs to start addressing the apparent desire of the SBNR to find a way to live (Buddhism is really a philosophy - describing a way to live - not a religion and definitely not one focused on "belief") rather than being so overly focused on "what to believe."  Heresy is a christian concept, and it's all about "belief" rather than about a "way to live."

Wav

I suspect that spirituality will mean as many different things, as there are people who believe themselves spiritual. 

I would suggest, for example, that at least for some segment of the SBNR crowd, it may be less that they want to throw "everything religious" out the door, as much as it is that when they assess (their) religion on the whole, they conclude that it has more negatives for them than positives.  And that would apply very specifically in the case of your question about a "way to live."

Jesus, I think, tried to speak to people about a way to live.  The first few generations of the early church appear to offer a model for Christianity as a way to live.  But that all changed with what i'll call the conversion of Constantine, and the marriage of church and state.   Religions ever since, have tried to make this about beliefs, presumably holding that proper beliefs will motivate how one will live.  But more and more, folks are questioning that.  To harp only for a moment on the obvious issue of the day, people look at the highest officials of the RCC, and they see a disconnect: it's a group of men (only) who in theory should be the shining examples of the theory that beliefs drive the way they live.  But when they look,  what they see is scandal after scandal, political actions, posturing, and all kinds of things that might suggest that maybe the leadership really doesn't believe the the theory, or worse, that they see this "beliefs drives how we live" as something that only applys to those who fall below them in the hierarchy.  And if true, for the SBNR folks, perhaps there's a better way, especially when you factor in the negatives of formal religion.

So you end up with people who are disaffected from religion per se, but who still like SOME of what religion has to offer.  What that "some of" might be will vary by the person.  But it seems to me that this growing "class" of the disenfranchised, of the SBNR folks, suggests a market for those who would write books, form new associations, or even "anti-religions" (meaning religions that try to look less like the formal religions that the SBNR crowd has left...)  Stated a little differently, we have a large, and possibly rapidly growing class of people, who are searching for something that they're not finding in formal religion.  And as might be expected, there will be no shortage in people who will see those people as a market.

We're seeing some fundamental societal shifts these days, not unlike what we saw start in the late 60s, and play out during the 70s.  Instead of demonstrations on college campuses, we do it via social media.  Instead of occupying a dean's office, we do things to draw an ever-expanding news media that is always hungry for controversy, and things that help them keep eyeballs glued so as to sell advertising space...  But if we look past the "way" this is happening, it seems to me that we live in a period of upheaval, because we're all sensing that it's time for change again.

Upheaval in religion is all too often cast to mean only "bottoms up" kind of change: heresy, apostacy, etc.  But I think periods of upheaval can ALSO mean tops down upheaval, such as what we're seeing in the RCC in the leadership's attempt to form the march to Trent.  Both represent a change in what people thought to be a status quo.  Both are driven by agendas.  And both will lead to change.

I think many of the SBNR set see all of that as being much more reminiscent of politics, than they do about that "way to live."