A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[Akita Suggagaki]

A fundamental difference between theological progressivism and traditionalism is the idea that there even can be something "learned" which must be "recognized" as part of the faith.

The radical reformers were, but the magisterial reformers at least attempted to explain how they were in continuity with what came before them. As for today's conservative evangelicals, yes, in many ways they are actually theological progressives: they tend to practice open communion with grape juice instead of wine; to the extent that they can be said to practice ordination, many of them ordain women; the vast majority of them would probably not be able to describe how they're even in continuity with the Church of the 15th century, let alone the 8th or 4th.
That's not to say that most of them aren't practicing theological conservatism with what they've received (in that they don't want it to change in a more relaxed or less reverent direction), it's just that what they've received is a product of 19th and 20th century progressivism.

But then I was thinking that reformers wanted to return to what they thought the original church was. In the Catholics church that was part of the thrust of Vatican II. Go back to sources and reclaim. This "going back" was seen as progressive. How ironic.

 

[jas3]

But then I was thinking that reformers wanted to return to what they thought the original church was. In the Catholics church that was part of the thrust of Vatican II. Go back to sources and reclaim. This "going back" was seen as progressive. How ironic.

That's an oversimplified view of the Reformation. The more traditional magisterial reformers - Luther, Calvin, and the Anglicans - didn't think you could "go back" in a way that would invalidate or be incompatible with Christianity as it existed for the preceding millennium, which is what theological progressivism does.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not Lutheran enough it would appear. LOL

As an Orthodox Christian with a Lutheran godfather who was raised in LCMS parochial school, I am proud of the fact that my church officially venerates the Holy Cross. Together with Anglo Catholics, Traditional Latin Mass Catholics, Traditional Old Catholics of the Union of Scranton, the more high church Evangelical Catholics of the Augsburg Confession (although not all) and many Traditional Liturgical Protestants such as the traditional Methodists of Epworth Chapel on the Green, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox make the Sign of the Cross.

One reason why I have likened Martin Luther and the extreme Evangelical Catholic component of Lutheranism to Oriental Orthodoxy is because not only did the Oriental Orthodox inspire Martin Luther to realize Papal Supremacy was an error, but also like Lutherans, the Oriental Orthodox put an extreme value on the importance of the Christological principle of Communicatio Idiomatum, both churches have been falsely accused of Monophysitism (Lutherans were falsely accused by Calvinists, and Oriental Orthodox were falsely accused by various people, most notably the fifth century crypto-Nestorian operative Ibas). And both churches stress the importance of the Cross.

The Oriental Orthodox however make the cross central to their beautiful iconography to an extent that surpasses even the Eastern Orthodox. Copts will draw a cross on pieces of paper before writing on them, as a devotion to the passion of Christ our God, the rock hewn churches of Ethiopia are cut from rock in the shape of a Cross, crosses adorn vestments, particularly Coptic Orthodox vestments, and the Armenians carve beautiful stone crosses called khachkars which the Azeris were destroying in those parts of Armenia they illegally occupied even before the complete ethnic cleansing in Ngorno-Karabakh, which Luis Moreno-Ocampo*, the famed Argentine civil rights lawyer and also the first man to serve as chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has warned is genocidal in character, with Azeri politicians repeatedly referring to Armenia as “Western Azerbaijan.”

The Ethiopian Orthodox also have the largest fragment of the True Cross known to exist among other priceless relics which survived in obscurity in Africa long after most Western Europeans at least assumed they were lost (and even Eastern Orthodox are at times understandably incredulous over the extent Ethiopian relics, but considering that Orthodox and Roman Catholics have at different times controlled the actual head of St. John the Baptist, I regard these concerns as overblown.

I would note that Progressive Christianity is interested in relics, but not Christian relics as far as I can tell, and there are some Progressives who wrongly see the Holy Cross as a symbol of oppression rather than liberation, which is why you won’t see one in many UUA churches.

*Luis Moreno-Ocampo was also the assistant to Julio Caesar Strassera in the prosecution of the military junta that terrorized the population of Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s with systematic widespread torture and a program or forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, and which also illegally invaded the Falklands and South Georgia in an attempt to distract the Armenian populace from the failing domestic economy.

 

[The Liturgist]

That's an oversimplified view of the Reformation. The more traditional magisterial reformers - Luther, Calvin, and the Anglicans - didn't think you could "go back" in a way that would invalidate or be incompatible with Christianity as it existed for the preceding millennium, which is what theological progressivism does.

Your Orthodox theology and your traditional Methodism delights me. Many of the answers you give to people on CF.com agree with explanations I have had to make on many occasions, for example, concerning the difference between the Magisterial Reformers and more radical elements.

We must get more closely acquainted.

 

[FireDragon76]

A fundamental difference between theological progressivism and traditionalism is the idea that there even can be something "learned" which must be "recognized" as part of the faith.

The radical reformers were, but the magisterial reformers at least attempted to explain how they were in continuity with what came before them. As for today's conservative evangelicals, yes, in many ways they are actually theological progressives: they tend to practice open communion with grape juice instead of wine; to the extent that they can be said to practice ordination, many of them ordain women; the vast majority of them would probably not be able to describe how they're even in continuity with the Church of the 15th century, let alone the 8th or 4th.
That's not to say that most of them aren't practicing theological conservatism with what they've received (in that they don't want it to change in a more relaxed or less reverent direction), it's just that what they've received is a product of 19th and 20th century progressivism.

Usually, what we mean by Progressive Christians, are Christians that take insights from modern science and/or postmodernism seriously as facts or genuine insights about reality.

Groups like the Restorationists or the Holiness movement were radical at times, but they often were naive on issues like biblical hermeneutics.

 

[The Liturgist]

Usually, what we mean by Progressive Christians, are Christians that take insights from modern science and/or postmodernism seriously as facts or genuine insights about reality.

Groups like the Restorationists or the Holiness movement were radical at times, but they often were naive on issues like biblical hermeneutics.

I have no problem with accepting scientific facts as definitive to reality, but postmodernism? The idea of even elevating postmodernism, the movement which has given us the ugliest, most nightmarishly dystopian, sprawling, user-hostile urban architecture to such an extent as to make Walter Gropius look like Frank Lloyd Wright, and whose contributions to philosophy are essentially a regurgitation of neo-Platonic and Gnostic dualism combined with an anti-consumerism that was edgy in the mid 1970s but in the early 2920s when shopping malls lie in ruin and the city centers they once threatened to destroy, after a period of renaissance, are not much better, even in cities until recently known for being exceptionally vibrant (London comes to mind), to being on a par with science, a discipline which concerns itself with facts, facts which postmodernism challenges the relevance or even the existence thereof, is absurd. And this fundamental contradiction is why the progressive denominations are shrinking at a much faster rate than those which have not elevated postmodernism to be equal to or better than the sciences and sacred scripture.

But I will weep when the last parishes of the ELCA, UMC et cetera close, because these were great churches which had the misfortune to be taken over by the same political movements which tried unsuccessfully to take over the LCMS (the Seminex incident in the 1970s) and even the Orthodox Church.

 

[tall73]

Usually, what we mean by Progressive Christians, are Christians that take insights from modern science and/or postmodernism seriously as facts or genuine insights about reality.

Perhaps we need a new term then, to distinguish some who try to take science into account, from those who promote absurdities.

For instance, I am not sure which "facts" of either sort are suggesting men should pretend to be caricatures of women, putting on drag displays in churches, as there are videos showing in some of the "progressive" congregations.

We can debate which doctrines make a progressive church. But in some cases, the only debate is whether they can still claim to be a church at all.

That is certainly not worship.

 

[The Liturgist]

And once more I have acknowledged your views on them. I have disagreed with your approach and have referred you to consider the various African scholarship who have written on how to best engage this topic. Which you have all the freedom to ignore.

I am not intending to beat this horse. And will not be goaded into discussion about whether or not I believe the salvation of Christ is optional as of if misrepresented the supremacy of Christ.

I am not accusing you of misrepresenting the supremacy of Christ; I assume you adhere to the Nicene Creed and the Christian Forums Statement of Faith and would not accuse you of that, and what is more I never wish to goad anyone into any discussion that is against the forum rules.

Rather my only position here is one of confusion - what I don’t understand is what makes an African more qualified to form an opinion on a religion such as Voudon, and whether that conversely, in your view, applies in reverse, for example, am I more qualified to form opinions on the religions of Europe because of my German and Swedish ethnicity, or North America because of my status as a citizen and national of the United States, or of the Orthodox religions because of my conversion to them? But on the last bit we then run into a problem because Orthodoxy rejects the idea of ethnophyletism, the idea that people of different ethnicities should pray in different churches - from an Orthodox perspective, the brutal Apartheid regime of PW Botha and the NP in South Africa was actually heretical, because the Eastern Orthodox effectively declared racial segregation as a heresy, and we excommunicated a Neo-Nazi after it emerged that he had lied about having repented of his racist politics, and also tried to claim that Orthodoxy somehow embraces the segregation of different ethnic groups - he will be readmitted to the Eucharist if he repents and performs canonical penances for his promotion of a heresy. He could have been anathematized for the action (which one can still come back from, but anathema is more severe than excommunication; if I recall someone who is formally anathematized has to receive the sacrament of Chrismation, which is analogous to confirmation albeit without the memorizing of a dialogue style catechism of the sort pioneered by Martin Luther, and also anyone can chrismate, not just bishops, and we chrismate infants and give them the Eucharist in the same liturgy immediately following their baptism, so that one gets all three sacraments of initiation in one hit.

At any rate, the issue is this: as an Orthodox Christian, formerly Congregationalist, baptized and raised in the United Methodist Church but alienated from it and driven by a desire to reclaim the most progressive churches from their progressive leaders, which contributed to my involvement in the United Church of Christ, which was a mistake - I think I could have made more of a difference in the Presbyterian Church USA, except I don’t really like the Presbyterian system of church government, although I love their preachers. In addition to Eastern Orthodoxy, I am actively involved in traditional Congregationalist as well as Continuing Anglican, Liturgical Methodist and conservative Lutheran churches, and in the support of Oriental Orthodoxy, which is admittedly unusual, in that there are not many Eastern Orthodox who have actively engaged in projects to support the Oriental Orthodox, and also a project involving the liturgy of the Church of the East. What animates all of this, which is an unusually large amount of ecumenical involvement, is my membership and former presidency of a group of liturgical scholars who work on translating and compiling traditional liturgical texts for traditional churches.

At any rate, surely I am at a minimum qualified to discuss the operation of Orthodox churches and Congregationalist churches and Continuing Anglican churches in Africa, particularly since after I left the UCC I did actually live in West Africa and have on the ground experience of the country and the people; I was best man at the wedding of my friend Amuda, who reposed in 2015 (memory eternal), who was in fact a Muslim, but I pray for his salvation in Christ, and I am happy that before he died, he was able to move to the United States, which was a lifelong goal of his. And for my part, I would enjoy returning to West Africa and living there, because of the sophisticated and beautiful culture of the Akan and Yoruba ethnic groups, whose Christian piety is the most profound of any people I have spent time with, along with the Ethiopians and the various persecuted Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and Assyrian Christians and Eastern Catholics of the Middle East and Africa.

And what is more, since derivatives of Voudon exist in the United States which do bear similarities to the original religion as practiced in Benin, and which tend to function in a similiar way, albeit with some replacement of traditional Yoruba deities with Biblical figures (I recall Moses being described as “the greatest Hoodoo man who ever lived” for the various miracles he performed, by a Hoodoo practitioner of African American ethnicity who regarded, in a manner typical of those religions derived from Voudon, the actions of Moses as theurgy, that is to say, acts of genuine sorcery, performed by the deities but commanded by a powerful practitioner using rituals and ritual objects such as the various fetishes.

And also I fail to see why we cannot regard a religion that, for no good reason, not even to eat them, but merely to use them in its rituals, kills kittens, and puppies, and other animals, and then throws them in the gutter, and likewise kills other animals including endangered species in order to obtain body parts from them for ritual purposes, as morally wrong, particularly in light of the increasing scarcity of these species.

My experience in West Africa convinced me of two things: that the best people to sort out the problems Africa faces are Africans, including in the case of South Africa and certain other countries such as Zimbabwe people of all ethnicities including the descendants of English and Dutch colonists, and that some charities operating in Africa contribute to the corrupt regimes, but others do excellent work which helps, but what really helps is economic engagement, but also at the same time, it does not take an African to discern the problems that Africa is facing. For example, eliminating the open sewers built by the British throughout Ghana, which serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes, would cost quite a bit of money, but would be money well worth spending, and is the sort of thing that Bill and Melinda Gates and others like them ought to be spending money on, rather than, for example, condoms - while condoms are readily available in Ghana, part of what keeps the HIV rate there low is the Christian morality of the population and abstinence from pre-marital sex, and also another thing that keeps it low is that the country is not dealing with a legacy of HIV infections such as is the very distressing case in countries with very high rates of HIV infection like Botswana. And additionally, the specific provision of contraceptives beyond condoms in developing countries seems to me to be quite wrong, since a reduction in birth rate would reduce one of the primary drivers of economic growth, and indeed the developed world needs to increase its birth rate, but to adjust for the ecological impact we need to build up rather than out, following the concepts of visionary architects such as Frank LLoyd Wright and his “Mile High City” and other related concepts, which are often called “Arcologies”, a term coined by the visionary architect Paolo Soleri.

Likewise, someone who is not Africa can perceive the harm the Voudon religion is causing, and the solution to this is to support missionary efforts to convert the practitioners of it in Benin, Togo and Ghana and elsewhere to Christianity, and also to promote legislation intended to restrict animal sacrifice.

 

[Rose_bud]

I am not accusing you of misrepresenting the supremacy of Christ; I assume you adhere to the Nicene Creed and the Christian Forums Statement of Faith and would not accuse you of that, and what is more I never wish to goad anyone into any discussion that is against the forum rules.

It did not appear that way in your post.

my only position here is one of confusion - what I don’t understand is what makes an African more qualified to form an opinion on a religion such as Voudon...

The reason I disagreed with your assessment of Voudon and pointed you to an African source for your information is that it's essential to consider the African voice on this topic, as Africans have personal experience and a deeper understanding of the cultural and historical context of their religions. African Traditional Religions, whether Voudon or others, are complex and multifaceted. These religions are not just sets of beliefs but ways of life. They don't have founding fathers like Christianity or Islam, nor do they have holy books like the Bible, Quran, Tripitaka, or Vedas. Instead, information is passed down through oral tradition, from one generation of elders to the next, each adjusting as seen fit within the core tenets of the tradition. If the custodians of the religion, usually community elders, die without passing on their knowledge, it affects some aspects of the religion but not its major traditions. Information is shared through material (shrines, groves, stones, etc) and non-material (stories, proverbs, songs, riddles etc) means.

If we set aside our prior knowledge of the New Testament, we can identify numerous parallels between ATR and the Pentateuch, particularly in their narratives and understanding of God. In ATR, God is revered as the Almighty, the Great High God, and other titles that reflect a deep sense of reverence and awe. This understanding of God is comparable to the Christian concept of the general revelation albeit not the special revelation we understand about Jesus.

Historically attempts has been made to study the religion, but misrepresentation occurred when well meaning explorers, unfamiliar with the context, labelled ATR practitioners with derogatory terms like idolaters and pagans. Communication barriers and language differences further hindered understanding. Also the vastness of Africa meant that limited encounters with one or few tribes led to sweeping generalizations about diverse religious practices. Additionally, ATR's oral tradition makes it challenging.

I acknowledge that foreign perspectives can offer valuable insights. However, it's important to recognize the limitations of speaking about another's religion without proper understanding and context.

whether that conversely, in your view, applies in reverse, for example, am I more qualified to form opinions on the religions of Europe because of my German and Swedish ethnicity, or North America because of my status as a citizen and national of the United States, or of the Orthodox religions because of my conversion to them?

An African who has embraced ATR at some point in their life is more qualified to form an opinion on it, precisely because ATR is a way of life that is deeply ingrained in the culture, community and identity. There is a lived experience and personal connection to the religion, which is essential to understanding its nuances and complexities.

As you rightly pointed out I cannot be qualified to provide an authoritive voice on your lived experience, it is your history, your way of life, your tradition. I may be able to offer thoughts, and insight from my perspective but I am at best commentary.

But on the last bit we then run into a problem because Orthodoxy rejects the idea of ethnophyletism, the idea that people of different ethnicities should pray in different churches - from an Orthodox perspective, the brutal Apartheid regime of PW Botha and the NP in South Africa was actually heretical, because the Eastern Orthodox effectively declared racial segregation as a heresy, and we excommunicated a Neo-Nazi after it emerged that he had lied about having repented of his racist politics, and also tried to claim that Orthodoxy somehow embraces the segregation of different ethnic groups - he will be readmitted to the Eucharist if he repents and performs canonical penances for his promotion of a heresy. He could have been anathematized for the action (which one can still come back from, but anathema is more severe than excommunication; if I recall someone who is formally anathematized has to receive the sacrament of Chrismation, which is analogous to confirmation albeit without the memorizing of a dialogue style catechism of the sort pioneered by Martin Luther, and also anyone can chrismate, not just bishops, and we chrismate infants and give them the Eucharist in the same liturgy immediately following their baptism, so that one gets all three sacraments of initiation in one hit.

Just because people have different backgrounds and ethnicities does not mean they cannot pray together. Of course Christians of varies ethnicities should pray together. Unity does not disregard diversity. Instead it acknowledges the unique experiences and perspectives that each person brings. The cross of Jesus Christ is a powerful reality of this unity, reminding us that racism has no place in our faith. The shared aspect of our faith is our allegiance to Jesus Christ.

Racism is an ideology where one ethnicity elevates themselves above another based on their skin color. One is not more superior than the other. This is not a Christian concept. Being respectful of another's experiences and understanding allowing them to speak for themselves would be a more Christian attitude. This of course does not mean agreement.

At any rate, the issue is this: as an Orthodox Christian, formerly Congregationalist, baptized and raised in the United Methodist Church but alienated from it and driven by a desire to reclaim the most progressive churches from their progressive leaders, which contributed to my involvement in the United Church of Christ, which was a mistake - I think I could have made more of a difference in the Presbyterian Church USA, except I don’t really like the Presbyterian system of church government, although I love their preachers. In addition to Eastern Orthodoxy, I am actively involved in traditional Congregationalist as well as Continuing Anglican, Liturgical Methodist and conservative Lutheran churches, and in the support of Oriental Orthodoxy, which is admittedly unusual, in that there are not many Eastern Orthodox who have actively engaged in projects to support the Oriental Orthodox, and also a project involving the liturgy of the Church of the East. What animates all of this, which is an unusually large amount of ecumenical involvement, is my membership and former presidency of a group of liturgical scholars who work on translating and compiling traditional liturgical texts for traditional churches.

At any rate, surely I am at a minimum qualified to discuss the operation of Orthodox churches and Congregationalist churches and Continuing Anglican churches in Africa, particularly since after I left the UCC I did actually live in West Africa and have on the ground experience of the country and the people; I was best man at the wedding of my friend Amuda, who reposed in 2015 (memory eternal), who was in fact a Muslim, but I pray for his salvation in Christ, and I am happy that before he died, he was able to move to the United States, which was a lifelong goal of his. And for my part, I would enjoy returning to West Africa and living there, because of the sophisticated and beautiful culture of the Akan and Yoruba ethnic groups, whose Christian piety is the most profound of any people I have spent time with, along with the Ethiopians and the various persecuted Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and Assyrian Christians and Eastern Catholics of the Middle East and Africa.

Based on the information and experiences you've shared your perspective on ATR would be informed by your background in Christian denominations and liturgical scholarship. While your insights are valuable, you should acknowledge that your views might be filtered through a Christian lens. This doesn't diminish the value of your contributions, but rather highlights the importance of considering your limitations as a qualified voice on ATR, which is a religion different to your own. IMO, Conversion and discussions should be to respectfully persuade with humility and appeal to the better alternative, which I wholeheartedly agree with you, is Christianity.

And what is more, since derivatives of Voudon exist in the United States which do bear similarities to the original religion as practiced in Benin, and which tend to function in a similiar way, albeit with some replacement of traditional Yoruba deities with Biblical figures (I recall Moses being described as “the greatest Hoodoo man who ever lived” for the various miracles he performed, by a Hoodoo practitioner of African American ethnicity who regarded, in a manner typical of those religions derived from Voudon, the actions of Moses as theurgy, that is to say, acts of genuine sorcery, performed by the deities but commanded by a powerful practitioner using rituals and ritual objects such as the various fetishes.

And also I fail to see why we cannot regard a religion that, for no good reason, not even to eat them, but merely to use them in its rituals, kills kittens, and puppies, and other animals, and then throws them in the gutter, and likewise kills other animals including endangered species in order to obtain body parts from them for ritual purposes, as morally wrong, particularly in light of the increasing scarcity of these species.

I never condoned the derivatives of Voudon practiced in the US. I also mentioned that I understand that certain elements of the religion (not just Voudon but most ATR) are contrary to the Christian faith. In fact, I specifically pointed out these concerns in post #142 and others. Where I outlined the approach I would prefer in addressing this along with highlighting some of the complexities of outright banishment.

One of my best friends (now Christian) is Xhosa, she would return to her village for weddings and funerals. She would still have to attend ceremonies where they sacrifice goats and sheep to appease the ancestors and theirafter eat it. Although she doesn't believe in its significance anymore, it's a way of life for her elderly. She would be thought of as arrogant and disrespectful should she suddenly call her elders...idolators, witches and every other derogatory name.. It would jeopardize her Christian witness. This is but one example, every other instance would have its own complexity. Hence my indication to follow the wisdom and leading of the Spirit.

My approach with her was to listen and present my defense for why I don't appease the ancestors and why the sacrifice of goats and sheep was done away with through God's own provision of the Lamb. But never did I call her derogatory names, even when some of the information was foreign, especially since I was raised in a Christian home.

My experience in West Africa convinced me of two things: that the best people to sort out the problems Africa faces are Africans, including in the case of South Africa and certain other countries such as Zimbabwe people of all ethnicities including the descendants of English and Dutch colonists, and that some charities operating in Africa contribute to the corrupt regimes, but others do excellent work which helps, but what really helps is economic engagement, but also at the same time, it does not take an African to discern the problems that Africa is facing. For example, eliminating the open sewers built by the British throughout Ghana, which serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes, would cost quite a bit of money, but would be money well worth spending, and is the sort of thing that Bill and Melinda Gates and others like them ought to be spending money on, rather than, for example, condoms - while condoms are readily available in Ghana, part of what keeps the HIV rate there low is the Christian morality of the population and abstinence from pre-marital sex, and also another thing that keeps it low is that the country is not dealing with a legacy of HIV infections such as is the very distressing case in countries with very high rates of HIV infection like Botswana. And additionally, the specific provision of contraceptives beyond condoms in developing countries seems to me to be quite wrong, since a reduction in birth rate would reduce one of the primary drivers of economic growth, and indeed the developed world needs to increase its birth rate, but to adjust for the ecological impact we need to build up rather than out, following the concepts of visionary architects such as Frank LLoyd Wright and his “Mile High City” and other related concepts, which are often called “Arcologies”, a term coined by the visionary architect Paolo Soleri.

Likewise, someone who is not Africa can perceive the harm the Voudon religion is causing, and the solution to this is to support missionary efforts to convert the practitioners of it in Benin, Togo and Ghana and elsewhere to Christianity, and also to promote legislation intended to restrict animal sacrifice.

I agree. Africas problems requires a nuanced approach and Africans should be taking ownership and the lead in solving their own problems. And that a collective effort by others should not be turned down.

Hence I never disagreed with this. What I pointed out is that whomever chooses to assist (albeit it missionaries or other) should approach with sensitivity and respect, making an effort to allow the local voice to speak for themselves, understand the complexity, and give regard to the historical and cultural context of ATR. For those really interested, there are study courses in ATR, from a religious and also a humanities perspective.

 

[FireDragon76]

Pantheism, Panentheism or Perennialism
As stated above, many progressive Christians affirm pantheism or panentheism. Another view that is promoted in the progressive church is perennialism, the idea that although different religions look different on the outside, at their core they share the same truth. In other words, they share the same source and come from the same ultimate or divine reality. This divine reality can be discovered through mysticism and contemplative practices.

I go to a relatively progressive UCC church. I don't think mysticism and contemplation are that common in my denomination. I think people stumble into it autodidactically if they are involved with contemplative prayer, for the most part. Most of the interest in Progressive Christians in mysticism and contemplation gets done through parachurch ministries, such as the Center for Action and Contemplation (Fr. Richard Rohr) or Wisdom Waypoints (the Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault).

To use a cognitive development model of Spiral Dynamics from Don Beck... mystical values are several tiers above the values I perceive in most Progressive churches, which is more World-Centric values. Mysticism is the dominant value beyond the Integral stage, after a person has begun to understand reality using systems logic. At this stage, a person perceives the universe as alive or transparent to the Divine, not as a notion, but as an actual experience. Only a very small fraction of the population in the US has this kind of cognitive and spiritual development, whereas about 25 percent of the US population are at the World-Centric or Green stage.