I'm very interested in finding a church home where the minister speaks from a Process perspective. I wonder if there isn't a directory of such churches available somewhere... or a directory of ministers instead of churches?

Right now, I'm in the Indianapolis area and would love to attend local services... May be in the Thousand Oaks, California area soon, though and would love to know if a local church there honors the process school of thought. I'm betting, however, that there are more "seekers" out there like me, who have nearly given up on finding an acceptable church home and would love to find a home to worship in, that doesn't feel like your sacrificing beliefs or values to attend.

Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Lynndal

Hi, Lynndal,
Your feelings certainly resonated in me. I'm afraid I'm one of those who has given up.
Tom

Hi,

The folks over at Process and Faith (www.processandfaith.org) have this sort of information. If you send them an email at faith@ctr4process.org, Im sure someone could help you out!

Southern California is the ideal place to find process-ish clergy because of the Claremont seminary.

Hi Lynndal!

I would sure like to see a topic on ecclesiology from a process perspective. Here's some of my own thoughts:

If one of the purposes of church is to create community, and if function follows form, the typical form of most churches inhibits their purpose. I notice that you connect "church home" with the idea of a minister speaking. This form of church reflects the image of a God who speaks but does not listen, whose "audience" sits in dumb attention. It is not the image of God as understood from a process view - a God who is within community, able to influence and be influenced. The history and roots of the clergy system is the result of a church which "gave unto God, the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar" (Whitehead).


I was hoping to see changes in church structure coming from the feminists and was excited after reading Household of Freedom , and Church in the Round, by Letty Russell, God-Christ-Church by Marjorie Suchocki, and God's Power by Anna Case Winters (to mention just a few) but it seems that for some reason, most women have simply joined the clergy power structure, competing with the males for control of the congregations.

Christ, in the early church community, was thought of as sitting at the table in the center of His people, sharing a meal (see Early Christian Worship, by Oscar Cullmann). This picture of community was replaced by that of Christ standing at a pulpit delivering His commands to an audience of mindless obediant servants. It is difficult for most to assocate the word "church" with any other image.

Don

I am brand new to this forum but very interesed in the topic of bringing process thought into the congregation.
I am a Lutheran pastor (for 15 years), currently serving as an interim. I am reluctant to go back into a permanent position because of these very issues.
I appreciate the perspectives of the previous writers and would love to have further conversation about the challenges of parish ministry today. I do try to use process theology into my sermons, prayers,etc, but it is a challenge and a risk. This past Sunday I had a member stop me right outside the door after church to argue about something I had said. I certainly don't mind talking about these things, but I wonder how to balance the needs of the more traditional members (and not make them wrong) with the needs of folks like Lynndal.
I am very interested in those John Shelby Spong calls the "church alumni society." How do we reach out to them without false advertising about where most of the rest of the congregation is coming from?
Lots of questions! Anyone have any good insights?

This is a very good proposal. Why not set up a database that has churches listed that are process oriented or have process trained ministers...then we can search it and find churches near by to visit and find a church home instead of continueing to wonder in the wilderness...

This is the very thing that the Center for Progressive Christianity (www.tcpc.org) does.
SuzeinBerkeley

I have just retired after some 30 years of preaching from a process perspective. In my last congregation there was a warm welcome to a process perspective... even-though they had never encountered it before ... There is a hunger for spirituality and to speak clearly about God and the lure and persuasive power of God rings bells. My congregation was a typical United Church of Canada, fairly biblical untutored, outreach orientated, and a mix of groups, with some small group events... It was the small group - bible study that I led some people into a deeper understanding of process.... others were just happy to hear sermons about the importance of belief for ethical and daily living. What was clear was even the conservatives listened because I was God centered - they longed for a liberal who believes, which process allows us to do...Even events like same sex marriage did not split us for a process orientation helped us hear what was at stake (the UCC has affirmed same sex marriage) and have agreed that all members (note here the word member, which means someone you know and is active in the church) have the right to be married by our staff.... being a small town this has not happened but there is an openness here.

One of the strengths of process liturgy is the use of silence - rather than wordy prayers of thanksgiving and intercession I used phrases and silence so now the cong looks forward to prayer time and and you can feel them pray together.... another help was to print my sermons and that helped educate. At first there was some puzzlement but as time went on more and people said - this is what I always believed.

George Hermanson

George,
Thank you for your reply. It was very helpful and encouraging.
In your ministry, did you identify your perspective as process theology or did you "just do it?"
To what extent, if any, did you explicitly try to teach or explain process thought itself?
Suzeinberkeley

Boy, am I glad to see this topic raised and addressed. I am a 1991 MA graduate of Claremont School of Theology, who went there explicitly to study process. Since returning to the real world, I have had next-to-no success in finding clergy and congregations interested in the constructive aspects of process theology. It seems that today's liberals are entirely absorbed with deconstructing the tradition -- tantamount to giving a stone to hungry laypeople.

In the mid-90s, I decided to tackle this problem on my own and, for two years, taught process theology (and philosophy of religion) to a variety of people -- from many religious traditions and none -- through America Online. The participants found process theology to be as liberating and inspiring as I had when I first read John Cobb in the Seventies. Indeed, despite the limitations of online communication (or perhaps because the anonymity of online allows folk to be vulnerable!), our little study groups soon came to feel like religious communities.

It was very sad when, at the end of each 10-week course, I was unable to provide an adequate response to the inevitable question: "Where can I find a church that embraces process theology (and will embrace me)?"

I'd love to discuss this issue with any who care to contact me: LeeMcAuliffeRambo@starpower.net.

I am finding that I am becoming more comfortable (and brave) in using process language in liturgy, preaching, etc. Would love to be in communication with others about this.
SuzeinBerkeley

I am finding that I am becoming more comfortable (and brave) in using process language in liturgy, preaching, etc. Would love to be in communication with others about this.
SuzeinBerkeley

Why, if Process Theology is a "Relational Theology", doesn't it change the practice of those who espouse it - or does it? For instance...

1) Why would someone continue to practice a form of church where the main function or focus was on "preaching"? Am I missing something or is there something relational about a monolog? Why couldn't or shouldn't the practice of "preaching" be labeled as "anti-dialog" and subject to the same criticism Paulo Freire writes about in his Education for Critical Consciousness?

2) Why would someone continue to support and/or be a part of the clergy system - or is there an argument which would refute the assertion that the clergy system is a patriarchal and hierarchal caste system with a history of domination and subordination and is based on a theology which is the exact opposite of relational? Why would someone continue to use terms associated with the clergy system as though there were any positive values communicated in their use? Letty Russell, in her book Church In The Round, calls for a "moratorium on language reflecting distinctions between laity and clergy". Shouldn't this moratorium be supported by those with a relational theology?

3) Why would someone with a relational theology look for expressions of this theology within institutions established to preserve the structures, forms, and power of those who adhere to non-relational theologies? Isn't this analogous to the experience of those disciples who searched for Jesus in the tombs and were told, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?"?

4) What would someone with a relational theology say about the purpose and meaning of "church"?

5) Hmmm

Don

The idea of preaching (not necessarily the praxis) is that the preacher is either himself a prophet or is reciting the message of the prophets. The idea of prophecy, or revelation, is that it lays out a type of knowlege or a path to that knowledge that the human could not arrive at through his or her own devices. Humans are after all rather limited creatures, which Whitehead was the first to take note of and comment upon, on numerous occasions. Whitehead's work itself is revelatory. It is highly imaginative, creative, and it comes out of the blue, without much precedent in human thought. This is especially true of the mode of expression in Process and Reality. Although Whitehead does contextualize it very well, he in fact goes out of his way to do that, precisely because it is otherwise so strange and otherworldly.

As for the idea of Hierarchy, it is a fact of nature. It is sometimes called the great chain of being. A dog does not have the same degree of attainment as a human, and a human does not have the same degree of attainment as an Ascended Master. A dog will one day be a human, and a human will one day be an Ascended Master, and so Hierarchy is not a license to abuse those lower on the chain, but a responsibility to lend a helping hand in pulling them upward toward ultimate liberation and freedom.

"Preaching" in the early church occurred out in the marketplace and to those outside the community. It is a mystery to me why it is tolerated today by those who are members of an intitutional church. It is one of the least effective methods for teaching, it inflates the egos of parasitical clergy persons, it stifles critical thinking, it is most often extremely boring, and it wastes the short amount of time available to the community and which could otherwise be spent profitably in learning how to love one another.

"Prophesying" was practiced within the community but was only one of the gifts available to build community. Because this gift could be abused, the Apostle Paul advised the community to listen to two or three prophets speak and then apply critical thinking to determine if what was spoken was profitable. I would love to see the day when a "preacher" could be told to shut up for awhile and let others have a say. (I Corinthians 14:26-33)


Yes, well it is also a mystery to me, why so many churches which claim to give weight to the words believed to have been spoken by Jesus, almost totally ignore what he taught about hierarchy and authority. It is a further mystery why persons who are familiar with feminists insights into power structures and who have a Process Theology continue to support hierarchical institutions.

How about some discussion here about alternatives to the institutional church - or is there someone who seriously entertains the idea of reform?

Don