The Emerging Church Conference hosted by the Center for Action and Contemplation here in Albuquerque, NM (http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/) kicked off today. There was a lot on the plate as we heard from Phyllis Tickle, Brian McLaren, and Richard Rohr so I think there is significantly too much for me to process now on this blog before I head to bed (and tomorrow promises to be not only a long day, but an early one as well). But here are a few thoughts.
Phyllis Tickle – while I thought what she had to say was good, I also found it to be her latest book, The Great Emergence, condensed down into a 50 minute thing. If you want to know what she said, then read the book (it’s a quick read) and I think does give some framework for our conversation now.
Brian McLaren – Much of what he said I had heard before, partially because I’ve read his books and talked with him, but also because I was at the Everything Must Change tour last year (and he even used the same slides which I thought was great). He began with an exercise – he showed us a video and asked us to count the number of times people passed a basketball. If you want to view the video, then click here and do this yourself: http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
So how many times did people pass the ball?
Did you notice the gorilla?
If you didn’t, go back and watch the video again.
Brian’s point was that when we’re looking for something in particular (i.e. the number passes) then we miss something else. So when we’re trained to think about Jesus in a particular way, then what are we missing?
Richard Rohr – I thought he was great tonight! He talked about being a non-dual thinker (which we in the western world have perfected, being dual thinkers that is). Oddly he told us not to think and yet I think he gave us a lot to think about… hmmm…
A couple of things Rohr said: “Jesus did not come to change God’s mind about humanity, but to change humanities mind about God.”
“Great love and great suffering introduce all people to non-dual thinking.”
“Once you need to prove one party right and another wrong, you are not a non-dual thinker.”
Anyway, there is much more to contemplate (a la contemplative, non-dual thinking) but I am too tired to put it down here now.
