Currents of Faith: Open and Unfolding Reflections

Teaching has been a lively adventure in which I have experienced my highest and lowest moments. I have felt frustration, agony, anger, despair, and excitement, delight, satisfaction, hope and peace. Gratefully, most feelings were high. This adventure seems ironic given that the earlier parts of me were scaredy cat, coward and saluting soldier. Thankfully, other parts grew within me over the years. I have learned in my own being the meaning of process and especially of creative transformation

I began when pastor of the Mercer Island church by offering “God groups,” opportunities for persons to clarify their understanding and experience with the divine. To some it seemed a little strange, since I was a psychologist and could have led many other types of enrichment groups. Yet for me, since the light bulb, referred to earlier, went on, coming to terms with God in one’s own life is central.

Teaching theology blossomed in Wenatchee after having left the pastorate and returned to the church four years later. I brought with me a greater conviction that theology meets the most basic needs in our lives. In 1978 Adrienne and I began a Sunday morning adult class which we called Process and Faith. We began by studying books by Dr. John Cobb.

I have always been clear about my motivation for moderating this class. I needed a place where I could talk about the ideas which had been bouncing around in my head, a setting where I could share what I had been reading. I was lonely for an enriching community focused on theology. In my counseling during the week other problems seemed more immediate and pressing for clients than faith, thus, their experience of God was not often  explored explicitly. Likewise, in social gatherings with friends, God was not the main topic. I am continually amused that some have had the illusion that teaching has been an altruistic venture for me. Wrong! I believe now that it has been a mutual meeting of needs.

In our Sunday class we operate in a democratic manner. The class members choose the book or topic we will study. Often we do this during a potluck at our home. Persons have time to research and decide that which is most important to them. As we sit in our living room, we hear from each person who wishes to make a proposal. He or she is encouraged to stand on a soap box and passionately campaign for their choice. Others are free to ask questions of the speaker. When all have spoken and their choices recorded, we mark a secret ballot. Two of our most trusted members, usually an accountant and a mathematician, tally the votes for the group’s first, second and third choices. Usually we will study the books in the order of those receiving the most votes. I am usually quite happy by this process, although several times I have had to moderate a book which I would not prefer. Such is democracy!

In an early class session we developed a drama to illustrate the “committee meeting.” The subject was the prodigal son returning home to the waiting father. We had two persons play the main characters, then asked a number of persons to stand in a row behind each placing their hands on each other’s shoulders and ultimately on the character’s shoulder. Two persons acted as the possibilities of God, luring them to a new action. The prodigal was torn between his long past urging him to turn around and avoid his father and the person appearing as the divine possibility luring him to meet his father honestly. On the other side the many persons were leaning on the father to follow the traditional law, while the divine possibility called him to meet his son with grace. In this manner the committee meetings of both father and son were dramatized. That day I think this concept became real for those in the drama.

We repeated that drama at a celebration of our twenty-five years as a class. This reprise was as fun as the original. We are now approaching our thirtieth year.

The class has always been a forum, a setting for discussion of a topic. Using the white board, I place the primary ideas from the reading we have done during the week and invite responses. Sometimes we stay on the subject, other times it serves as a diving board into that which is more relevant on that particular day for those present. Over time we developed the following guidelines: “Come when you can, Read when you are able, Speak when you wish, Honor the views of others.” In this manner we offer an easy entry into the church and to serious study. New persons are welcome at any time in our process.

I have learned from my theology that there are many leaders during a class session. The one who is proposing an intriguing response or a unique idea is for those moments the leader. I encourage conversation among members of the class and only enter in to clarify or express a curiosity about implications of their proposals.

We have guidelines for participating in community. There are twelve and the emphasis is upon respect for the views of other class members. This translates into speaking briefly, allowing others to finish their message, being sensitive that all who wish are given an opportunity to speak, respecting others if they prefer not to speak, and honoring those views which differ from your own. On a few occasions we have had persons who spoke critically toward another, one who later described our class as “phoney intellectuals,” and another on leaving who said “you are all going to hell!” I can deal with words spoken during class but can do little about those which come outside. Our effort is to be gracious toward one another, having studied the parables of the prodigal son and the vineyard owner.

Over our thirty years, we have studied an awesome variety of books and topics. For our twenty-fifth celebration, Jeanie Garrity compiled the list and created artistic book marks. Some of our topics were: apocalypse and war, transforming theologies, process theology, focus on the future, search for grace, creeds, homosexuality and the Bible, relationships, divine and human in Jesus, medieval, modern and postmodern world visions, and the reformation of Islam. A sample of authors included: Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, John Cobb, Jr., Diana Eck, John Spong, Marjorie Suchocki, Thomas More, David Polk, Huston Smith, Rebecca Parker and the United Methodist Bishops.

Perhaps the best image for this class is a tree, a main trunk flowing into many branches with a host of leaves. From the delight and encouragement of the class a number of other events have grown. I am convinced of process, that there must first be roots, a trunk, main branches and leaves. I am equally convinced that each step must grow from an earlier one rather than jumping from roots to leaves. From the class grew a lecture series, a yearly Christmas caroling event, the bleak mid-winter potluck, the lay school of theology, a national consultation on lay theology, and Visioning America. I am also sadly aware of some of the branches which we had hoped would grow that did not. Thus, we experienced the ecstasy and the agony.

Since we began our class by studying books by Dr. John Cobb, class members began to express an interest in hearing him personally. We explored this possibility and after considerable planning, he became our first lecturer in the Albertson Lectures. A lectureship which honored the Rev. James Albertson, minister of our church for ten years  during the time the current church building was constructed. I recall that Dr. Jerrry Rappe’ offered to pay for a half page advertisement in the newspaper announcing our first lecture.

 In September, 1980, Dr. John Cobb presented on the theme “Down to Earth God Talk.” His lectures titles were: Update on trends in theology; The call forward: A process view of God; Global consciousness: God in the midst of the headline events; The religious cult: A perspective from process theology; and Hope for the future: The adventuring God. Dialog groups were led by a number of process thinkers in the Northwest. I recall Adrienne and I prepared dinner for John and Jean Cobb and dialog group leaders at our home. We were pleased, thrilled and delighted that a world class theologian would come to Wenatchee and that our new class had prompted the happening.

In addition to the Sunday morning class, Adrienne and I were leading the Family Life Program in our congregation. We used many of our skills which we had learned from Transactional Analysis, Creative Anger, and Parent Effectiveness Training to develop the program. We had also led classes in our counseling practice, so had a number of group designs in our back pockets. I recall most vividly the sessions we had on the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, an inventory by which to learn one’s personality type. There were over seventy persons in our fellowship hall participating in this venture. I still smile when I remember asking an introverted person and an extroverted person to talk with each other about their daily lives. Roars of laughter, including from the two participants, filled the hall. Later, it was delightful to hear two different personality types describe a wooden carved statue of St. Francis.

From our Sunday class another event was birthed, a branch sprouting from the tree trunk. We decided that it would be fun to have a caroling party. First, all class members were invited, then our guest list expanded, such that today, thirty-four years later, we total 45 – 55 singers. We have watched a generation grow up, those who came as toddlers now present as married adults. The invitation is for persons to give a Christmas gift to someone special. We load the church bus and several larger vehicles and begin our journey. Arriving at a home, the persons giving the gift ring the door bell and greet their friends, just as we all enter into Yuletide songs. We have bells for children to ring and have at times even had a trumpet player. People who are home-bound or hospitalized have the highest priority and when we are invited inside it seems that the ceiling is lifted by the voices. After six to eight calls we wend our way back to our home and enjoy shared food and drink. We push out the walls of our home, some youth escaping upstairs to watch Christmas videos. In recent years the youth of our church have joined us and now see caroling as part of their tradition.

Leading family life events was fun, but I began to be dissatisfied. Yes, we were teaching relating skills to people and, Yes, we were covering a variety of topics in Sunday class. However, I said to myself, “You are an ordained minister. You have some more basic things to offer.” Thus, began intimations of the Lay School of Theology. I was excited by this prospect, just as I was dissatisfied by present offerings in the church. Classes did not offer an integrated approach toward a defined goal. They seemed to stand alone rather than as a step toward something greater. I thought that any mental health professional could offer relating skills. Without being critical of these skills I thought that I had something more to offer by virtue of my theological training. I had read a recent book by my spiritual mentor, Dr. John  Cobb, Lay Theology and thoroughly agreed that we needed a thinking church.. I began by offering a class using this book as our focus.

I looked around for others who might join me in a new venture. Having been in the church nearly twenty-five years gave me a head start. I saw two other ministers from other denominations now a part of our congregation. I heard that there was a young woman who was reading John Wesley’s sermons—not exactly the fare of most lay persons. I knew persons from our Sunday class who loved theology. I knew a person who was in curriculum development for the public schools and was a former religious, and I knew an editor for our local newspaper who obviously knew how to write. I knew a colleague in counseling.

A vision was taking form within me. First, we would develop a dynamic program of theology for layperson in the church, later have the materials published, and create an internship on how to facilitate groups. We would be available to share both the content of theology and the process of groups to other churches. What a great combination! This vision was not to be, except for two occasions, a consultation in Wenatchee and a training session in Tacoma.

In 1994, we started, twelve of us, to design a school of theology for laypersons. We met on alternate weeks for a year working out the plan for the school. We were determined not to begin until we had laid a good foundation. We had ideas about both content and process. Participants would begin by telling their life story and their experiences with the divine, then using their story, develop their own concept and images of God and clarify their experiences of God.

The facilitator would tell his or her story first, assuring others that we were not asking them to do anything that we had not already done. “Come on in, the water’s fine!” I will never forget the response of a young woman who spoke after I told my story. “I can see this is not going to be your usual Sunday school class.” Their next challenge would be to compare their vision of God with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason and experience, then apply their vision to a number of real life situations.

We originally called this module, The Foundational Experience, which would be followed by a module with a different task, one of looking around to see which of several theologies of the day they could embrace. We named this class, Five Theologies. Out of the many we could have chosen to present we selected: Classical (St. Augustine); Fundamental (Jerry Falwell); Evangelical (Billy Graham), Process (John Cobb); and Feminist (Rosemary Ruether).

We offered eight components of each of the five theologies: God, Person, Christ, Creation, Salvation, Revelation, Church, and Future. So that they could dazzle their friends we included the Greek names for each component, as Soteriology for Salvation. We constructed a sheet with rows and columns, summarizing these components for each theology. Persons could, thereby, ask themselves to what degree they accepted the components and later the total picture. At the conclusion we challenged them to write their own descriptions for each of the eight components. They would have the beginning of their own theology.

As a process thinker I was free to invite people to look over the landscape of theology available today without attempting to convince them of the wonderful qualities of my theology. I felt that process theology must throw its hat in the ring like all the others. I trusted people to choose that which was authentic for them.

The first course we designed called for persons to look into their past and within themselves to increase their awareness of God in their lives. In the second course we wanted people to look around rather than back or within. They could, then, identify a present day theology which would be most compatible with their newly created vision of God. We considered these two classes as complementary, one growing from the other. We developed nine classes before we opened the Lay School. Ultimately we created fourteen, as we saw areas which were not addressed.

I have outlined the content of two classes, but the process of the classes was also of great concern to us. We had a design which was somewhat unique. The plan was that about eight people would stay together throughout the nine classes, the facilitator changing, not the participants. The concept of “person-in-community” guided this approach. We asked people if they had a group of friends or acquaintances who would like to enter as a group into this theological venture. People would experience relationships which would deepen and mature over time. People would know one another more fully and be able to assist one another during the adventure. Those of us guiding the school would also stay together enriching our relationships. If I were drawing this on a white board, there would be a circle of people in the middle, the Resource Council, and a number of circles of people surrounding it, the small groups. We would all be in and enriched by community.

We were stunned when we started offering classes, having thought that perhaps two groups would serve as a trial run for us. Six groups formed! We celebrated! Our Resource Council was busy facilitating these groups.

Facilitating these groups provided me and others some of the most heightened experiences of our lives. Watching others respond to my life story and hearing others share their stories was touching and moving. It confirmed for me that those persons I see in the coffee hour after worship have awesome experiences which I would never have known without the groups. More so, the visions of God which were created by persons were thrilling. Dick Lapo, the professor of music at Wenatchee Valley College, expressed God in a hymn, Dr. David Priebe, an orthodontist, in a metaphor of a hunting dog, Parmalee Moos, an active church member, through geometry, Pat Swanson, a poet, writer and photographer, with delightful poetry, Julie Gotthold, a poet who later joined our Resource Council, by sculpting a granite rock. I wish that space allowed me to quote their delightful visions of God.

A new opportunity appeared in 2000, a new branch on the tree trunk. Dr. Will Beardslee, then director of Process and Faith, led a provocative discussion at our Process and Faith Council in Claremont. We could have a Consultation on Lay Theology. The plan was to invite leaders in local churches in the United States who were doing creative work in theology with adults to come to Wenatchee to share experiences and learn from one another. To this event would be invited those local church leaders who had developed the programs, faculty from the School of Theology at Claremont, and leaders from several denominations. “Wow!” I thought. “Just think, we would bring together local church, denomination and theological school.” It was indeed tingly to contemplate.

A grant of $35,000 was awarded from the Louisville Institute and we were off and running. And it would be held in a local church, Wenatchee First United Methodist. Participants came from Oklahoma, New Mexico, New York, Texas, California, Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee, and South Carolina. I served as moderator for the sessions of twenty-four participants. Leaders from the churches shared the history, curriculum, goals, and aspirations of their program. We formed small groups and members of our Resource Council guided participants through the beginning section of our Foundational Experience. Adrienne was surprised and awed to moderate the group in which Dr. John Cobb participated.  

During this consultation a new branch of the tree appeared. A representative of Chalice Press, Dr. Camilla Blessing, attended the sessions. Afterwards she invited me to bring our materials to St. Louis to be a part of a program that facilitates authors. This meant there was hope of publishing our lay school classes. Needless to say, I was elated!
I flew to St. Louis for three sessions over as many years and revised our materials as was suggested by their editors and consultants. In the third session, I was told that our material was next to be published. Again, I was delighted! Alas, several months later I was called by the president of the publishing house and told that they would not publish the material. A branch grew, then withered. I was very sad!

Another disappointment was our development of a group which would address social issues within our nation. We began by calling it A New Vision for America and later transformed it to Visioning America, largely because the domain on the web for the first title was already occupied. Dr. Bob Anderson and I were both deeply depressed following the 2004 elections after putting so much energy and hope into the campaign. In sharing our misery, we decided to do something positive. We would found an organization which would encourage positive proposals on critical issues in our country. We discussed this plan with our pastor and the administrative board and we began.

I recall about fifty persons attending our first session in the Meikle Room where our Sunday class meets. We listed a number of important issues and asked people to divide into groups around the issue which was most important to them. We suggested a procedure whereby proposals would be created first in the small group, then shaped and refined in the total group. Bob would offer a time of meditation during each session to experience peace in the present, not just hoped for in the future. The group was to be non-partisan and not support a candidate or a political party. This was necessary to meet the Internal Revenue Service requirements for meeting on church property. We did serious research on several timely issues, especially the future of Social Security.

We were moving along and feeling good about our mission. Several church members sought out our pastor and expressed strong resentment about this group being active in our church. We were truly surprised and distressed. Our pastor said that our group was acceptable if we were to only study an issue but not come to any decisive conclusions or practical proposals. We thought this defeated our purpose. Our situation was further complicated by the lack of opportunity and permission to personally meet those in opposition. We decided that our group should meet elsewhere until an opportunity to dialog appeared. It did not appear. We waited for a Visioning Conference for the congregation, to be moderated by a facilitator from the Alban Institute in several months. In this setting we thought the issue would be surfaced and resolved.

The Conference was utterly disappointing for us. When participants were asked about their concerns many national and global issues were expressed and written on the board. We were hopeful that our church members saw the value of social action. Groups were formed to research and role-play a particular mission. We did so. Ours was social action. Each mission was proposed to be a part of our total church mission. We were aghast when only one no vote from any participant would effectively end it and put it aside. Because there were several negative votes, our mission was thrown in the waste basket. I was heartbroken and angry. I went into the Meikle Room and sat. I did not have the heart to be a part of the remaining conference. We had waited hopefully for months and were summarily stopped by a few. Our desire to add the dimension of social concern to the Lay School was defeated. This sprouting branch was ripped from the tree trunk.

After ten years the Lay School was in decline. We had difficulty gathering a group together to begin a new class. Some classes had grown smaller by attrition and were blended with other classes. In reviewing these events I think several things contributed to this situation. Surely, Visioning American rubbed some people the wrong way. Yet we had also “fished out the pond” after over 250 persons had completed our first class and nearly as many the second class. In addition, some saw our Sunday class as progressive, a negative term in their eyes.

Another factor was the issue over priorities in the congregation. Some saw the music program as of utmost importance, others the educational program. A number thought it unfair that significant money was allocated to the music program after passing through two small committees and no wider meetings with the congregation. The proposed action came as a surprise to many. A concerned group gathered before a church meeting, deciding that this decision needed to be more widely reviewed. One person was designated to move to table the budget until this wider review was completed. That person made the motion and I seconded it. Choir members and those supporting the emphasis on music were angry and saw us as “bad guys.” This, too, put the Lay School program in a negative light.

So, after ten years the lay school became dormant. Fishing out the pond, conflict and lack of resolution over the Visioning America program, division over financial priorities in the church and lack of pastoral support all contributed to its demise. And I was deeply depressed. I had such hopes and dreams for this venture and they had turned to ashes. No phoenix was in sight.

It is here that I experienced creative transformation first hand. With the arrival of our new pastor, Rev. Julie Price, we had a new opportunity. She was interested in developing a comprehensive membership training program. We would work together and the Lay School might take on a new form, “Welcome to First United Methodist Church.” A committee has been formed, most from our earlier Resource Council and we are meeting regularly and making significant progress. By aligning our classes with the new member classes there will be a continuing pool of persons with motivation to study. Members will also be encouraged to participate in the classes for continued learning. I am hopeful that many of the meaningful ideas we created for the lay school will continue to live in the member classes.

In my own experience I have come to value the concepts of creative transformation and contextual creativity. That which was possible yesterday may not be possible today, just as what works today may not work tomorrow. A process is always present.

I had to ask what led to the decline of our Lay School other than the evident conflicts we experienced in the church. I think that I have found some of the answers. People are reluctant to commit to a class lasting eight weeks and more than reluctant to think about a three year program. I am now thinking of modules of four sessions. Planning on a new group of people interested in classes each quarter and each year is unrealistic in a church setting. Perhaps because of my thirteen years in the university, I was unconsciously thinking that, of course, there will be a new freshman class next year. Only a certain number of our church members are interested in any form of education thus limiting our pool of potential participants. I think we literally did “fish out the pond.”

Our materials were not published and given that form of legitimacy. We did the best we could locally, but it still looked like photocopied typing. Our church publications director, Jennifer Evenhus, and a friend who is a graphic artist, Lynn Fuller, created some awesome formats, symbols and pictures. Groups wax and wane. Starting with eight, through attrition, a class series might end with four or five. This meant blending with another group, mixing people who did not share the same history from the beginning. Yes, I learned a lot and much of it painful, but today I am the wiser. As we begin the transformation I and others do so with new insights.

From thirty years with the Sunday class, twenty-seven years of the Albertson Lectures, and ten years with the Lay School of Theology, I am left with some deep convictions about teaching in the church. First and foremost people need a safe place to relate. They need a setting in which there are agreed upon guidelines which protect their confidentiality as well as to allow them to know how the group will operate. A number of times in groups I have heard people say “this is the first time I have shared this experience” or “I have never told anyone about this before.” Their words speak of a safe space. The facilitator needs to share first as a means of developing trust with the group. This is essentially saying, “I am going to trust you with who I am and what I believe.” “I am inviting you to trust and share.” Permission is granted for them to do likewise.

Authenticity has become an increasingly important concept for me. I do want to be sincere and honest myself, and I cherish it for others. I want others to trust their own experiences. Of all places, the church should be the place for speaking the truth in love and being accepted in doing so. I have come to know that if you invite authenticity you will encourage diversity. They go hand in hand and are both of great value. Acceptance of both is a challenge to all participants. Many times in groups I have been taken by the vast range of beliefs and affirmations which were expressed.

I affirm freedom. There cannot be a predetermined outcome for people in a class. A facilitator needs to trust others to come to their own conclusions. I know from counseling that people experience grace when they are accepted just as they are. What is not widely known is that this recognition and acceptance are the most likely ways for persons to consider change. If one desires change, the beginning is to accept the present reality of the other.

Building community is as important as authentically sharing faith. People need the opportunity to experience “person-in-community” in addition to knowing about it. Relationships are a significant aspect of faith. They need to be identified and valued within the group process. Adrienne and I developed an internship on how to facilitate a group, which will be shared in another chapter.

I value persons creating their own unique vision of reality. To integrate all that one has experienced into a pair of glasses, lenses, to view the world is central to one’s wholeness and health. My theology offers me such a vision, and I desire that others have their own vision.

I continue to teach in the church today because I need it. I find meaning there. I am most alive, vibrant, and authentic when I facilitate a group. I tell persons that talking theology is like eating candy!