This thread could branch off in many directions, but I'd like to focus on one dilemma in particular, at least in the beginning.

Few people find their church a place of healing community. And I don't simply mean those churches that gather in small groups for healing prayer; this is certainly crucially important, but can itself function according to long-standing blind-spots re: the difference between evil and shadow aspects of the psyche. This crisis often appears for people once they encounter the kundalini energy as it awakens subconscious areas of inner life that hold trauma and unresolved longing for which there are strong resistances based upon family agreements, often unspoken. This energy is the energy of attachment and differentiation, and as such its pains and traumas only heal within a certain kind of relationship. I'd like to explore what those relationships in the church might look like, how and why they are missing so often, almost to the point of defining the church as psychologically inept when it comes to these challenges.

Sounds like a good topic, w.c. I'm eager to see where you go with it. There are numerous additional "challenges" I can think of myself, but will wait awhile before getting around to those.

Peter Scazzero's The Emotionally Healthy Church is a major voice for this kind of growth in the Body.

Details for The Emotionally Healthy Church

Something is desperately wrong with most churches today. Many sincere followers of Christ who are passionate for God and his work are unaware of the crucial link between emotional health and spiritual maturity. They present themselves as spiritually mature but are stuck at a level of immaturity that current models of discipleship have not addressed. Discipleship that really transforms a church must integrate emotional health with spiritual maturity....

Our churches are in trouble, says Scazzero. They are filled with people who are ·unsure how to biblically integrate anger, sadness, and other emotions ·defensive, incapable of revealing their weaknesses ·threatened by or intolerant of different viewpoints ·zealous about ministering at church but blind to their spouses’ loneliness at home ·so involved in “serving” that they fail to take care of themselves ·prone to withdraw from conflict rather than resolve it.

-----

I first heard of EMC from a church leader on a healing ministry team. She told me their group was going through the workbook and opening up about their childhood abuse, how it affected ability to relate, etc.. I was impressed with that! I don't think you need to wait for kundalini to throw up pains and traumas.

There's other authors and models out there addressing this need, and they are gaining national attention. More later as I gotta go...

Thanks Shasha. I'll take a look at the book reviews. The title sounds promising at least.

This is a complicated topic. It's been my experience that Catholic and mainline Protestant churches are very much aware of the reality of psychological problems and generally don't attribute them to the devil. Many ministry teams have one or more staff members trained in pastoral or substance abuse counseling, and pastors constantly refer people to various forms of counseling if they can't provide it at church. They go to workshops and seminars to learn to identify these issues, when to refer, who to refer to, etc. Indeed, a common criticism of many church leaders is that their message is "too psychological" and not "religious" enough. An exception to all of the above would be the evangelical and fundamentalist branches of Christianity, but these are a minority, albeit a vocal one.

Also, we should note that there are systemic reasons contributing to a number of psychological issues, and the churches have been addressing these for years. Issues like materialism, consumerism, individualism, relativism, alcohol/drug abuse, stresses in marriage, both parents working, television -- all these and more contribute to family stresses that create dysfunctional relationships. At the same time, there are more resources in the community to address many of these issues than ever before.

We certainly need to emphasize the holistic aspects of Christian spirituality, but I'm not sure how much we should be doing beyond that. Families, schools and various community agencies also have a significant role to play in promoting mental and emotional health. The church's primary focus needs to be forming people in faith -- the whole person, of course: not just intellect and will. If we fall down on that role, there is no one else to pick up the slack.

Phil:

I know you have your pulse on some of this, as you're so involved in developing programs for spiritual formation. But when I think of what is missing in church community, it isn't the sort of thing you're mentioning here. Priests and pastors, as you say, are savy to their limitations and refer out more often nowdays. What I'm considering isn't more of the same, at least as I understand you, but types of small groups that aren't so fettered with the usual verbal-cognitive emphasis on community building. Not that talking and intellectual reflection wouldn't be involved; however, there is a deep and rich dimension, which obviously you're aware of, that is often untapped as people gather in small numbers. I explored this in my thesis, and in each focus group I did the participants were surprised to find a heart-centered, nonverbal way of communicating to be a rather novel and effective experience for healing and understanding each other; it even lends itself to authentic play, which is a species quite different than adult forms of leisure, along with artistic expression. Now, not everybody's going to want this sort of thing, as it can be quite threatening, especially for the large percentage of folks just wanting "spiritual fast food." What I'm suggesting blends well with something like group Lectio Divina, but also emphasizes what can happen when people join together in pairs, in small groups of say 6 or 8 max, and learn to listen and feel from the front of the body. This area not only embodies woundedness, but also a capacity of healing from within the wound itself that isn't so difficult or overwhelming when the group intention isn't diluted with intellectual reflection disconnected from visceral, heart-centered awareness. Explorations of gratitude, love, acceptance, patience, etc . . . can be made from this bodily perspective, and are often rather abstract otherwise.

Yes, I understand the need you're calling attention to, w.c., and I do think Christianity in the future will need to pay more attention to this need. The old "immigrant church" (in Catholicism) where community existed out on the street and in the neighborhood is long gone. Protestants have traditionally given much more attention to issues of hospitality and pastoral care. But small groups with a faith-sharing and/or contemplative focus along the lines you indicate is where the future needs to go.

I am in two contemplative prayer groups and a Lectio group, and I think they would fit w.c.'s criteria.Contemplative Outreach seems to be creating centering prayer groups all over the place.The Centering prayer group I am in has a serious Buddhist practitioner as well as a motley crew of Christians who just like to pray silently together -- you don't have to follow Keating's "rules". I feel deeply enriched by these groups.We are all involved in church to some extent, too.You may find a real home for yourself in a contemplative prayer group, w.c.(There was quite a bit of sharing when I said that I was doing some Focussing work with a therapist -- people seemed to know what I was talking about, and talked about their own involvement.)I wouldn't want to be in groups that shared their "unloading of the unconscious",but I appreciate the sharing of woundedness and the felt sense of connection and human warmth.

Yes, bdb. These could slowly transform the psychology of the churches, so that they are places of depth and belonging rather than just depth by sacrament and liturgy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,

I'd like to expand the topic a bit with a few additional challenges, most of which apply to Catholicism:

1. More accountability for church leaders. I'm not against having a hierarchy/magisterium as I believe there's a charism at work there, but I do think it's unhealthy that these leaders aren't really accountable to anyone except, ultimately, the Pope.

2. Building bridges to connect our rich tradition with postmodern Christians. They just don't feel connected with our more premodern/modern liturgies.

3. Call another Vatican Council to deal with back-burnered, hot-topic issues: birth-control, women and Orders, homosexuality, married priests, etc. Yes, I know there are already clear positions taken on all these issues, but they're not very convincing to most Catholics. Furthermore, they've become divisive, keeping many away from the Church, or else promoting a "cafeteria" mentality with regard to our teachings. Protestant conferences are addressing all of these, but it seems we've got our heads in the sand. Just re-iterating and re-packaging the teachings isn't good enough.

That'll do for now.

Phil:

I share those concerns, and have had a difficult time attending Mass recently simply because of the "fast food" mentality in most parishes. But as you allude, the Vatican may in some sense prefer this, just as it prefers to draw as much as possible from Latin American and Asian countries for celibate young priests whose cultures already have them unlikely to strongly question authority, rather than open up holy orders to married men. Were the Vatican to ever open holy orders to married men, it would never be able to put the lid back on. If it recanted such a move later, the seeds for dissent and cleavage in the church would already be planted, especially since it already views American Bishops with caution anyway; otherwise, the percentage of celibate priests would shrink dramatically over the next few decades, and this would render a shift in emphasis in areas that would be abominable to the heirarchy. Married priests would have more than just sympathy with birth control, as they'd be utilizing it themselves in large numbers. And women would be viewed differently, especially as married bishops take the stage more and more.

So I don't see any of what you're referring to likely to happen. JPII circumvented this trend by appointing his own bishops rather than letting the U.S. ecclesia make that decision, if I understand the issue correctly. As ethnic cultures continue to flood the U.S. church, the Vatican will sit fat and happy, most of their ilk, anyway.

I have a book on my list to read, sitting here on the shelf:

"Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus," by retired Bishop Geoffrey Robinson.

He's lost a lot of "friends" with this book, and was treated very poorly by what's his name in California, the archbishop, who wouldn't allow him to speak locally. Bishop Robinson travelled throughout the U.S. elsewhere and was apparently well received. But if you google him you'll see many who are still appalled that any serious questioning should occur at this level of authority in the church. Just amazing the psychological immaturity that can still pass itself off as gate-keeping of the traditions.

I'm actually considering leaving the RC church myself, maybe returning to the Episcopal Church. I'd rather stay on and be part of the answer, but it seems one can only find an occasional parish with a living sense of community, and these are hardly treated as models for envisioning the future by Rome, or even the local episcopacy.

w.c., I can empathize with your struggles. We have found a wonderful parish just outside of Wichita, but I'd probably be OK with most any. Somewhere along the line my expectations changed to the extent that I no longer was bothered by poor homilies or liturgies. An obnoxious priest would be counter-symbolic and I'd find another parish if that were the case, but, otherwise, my primary reason for going to Mass is to pray the prayers with the priest, to simply be with others in worship, and to receive the Eucharist. I don't look to the Mass or even my involvement in the parish to meet any basic psychological needs, mostly likely because these are taken care of in other places, most notably marriage and family life.

I am somehow able to acknowledge the problems I perceive in the Church and still be able to feel that this is where I belong. For one thing, there are problems in other churches as well, and none of them (except the Orthodox) really has any substantive mystical tradition, which is where I find my soul fed.

Michael Crosby wrote a controversial book a number of years ago, "The Dysfunctional Church." He used the addiction model as the basis of his analysis, and identified the core dysfunction as the commitment by the hierarchy to preserve the male, celibate priesthood. It was a compelling argument he gave, tying a wide range of issues to it, but I wasn't totally convinced. Still, a good read. I also found the link below to resonate strongly with where I am:
- http://whybecatholic.blogspot.com/

I think the challenges are not just to establish small groups but for catholic churches to become family again. You mentioned phil that once long ago immigrant churches but have long lost that family feel. I would go further and say that Catholic Churches have adopted a rather poor model of small group ministries based on successful protestant churches such as Willow Creek. My problem with these is that routinely are not family but more of a bible study or study group.
I have decided to go home back to where I came from even though they rife and full of division over some important moral issues. Why because they accepted and married my wife and I for who we are not rich struggling christians who love Christ. My wife is mexican and the Catholic Church in the area discouraged us through the 6 month period and then would not marry us because being a white charismatic Roman Catholic Church supposedly liberal in there own words said that I am white and she should marry within her own ethnicity even though we had all documents we needed and all the correct information. The little Episcopal Church I attend loves liturgical prayer, silent prayer and is a community small group rolled into one. I guess what I am saying in all of this is that if christians off all stripes are going to effectively minister to hurting folk and we were hurting and rejected they are going to have to get past this fake small group thing and really genuinely meet people were they are at.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:

I'm actually considering leaving the RC church myself, maybe returning to the Episcopal Church. I'd rather stay on and be part of the answer, but it seems one can only find an occasional parish with a living sense of community, and these are hardly treated as models for envisioning the future by Rome, or even the local episcopacy.

W.C. I'm surprised at you. ;-) Actually I am somewhat in the same "boat" and have been taking more of an interest in the Episcopal church. And as a woman, I am tired of the one sided male hierarchy ... unbalanced I say.

Katy

quote:

Originally posted by Jaan:
I think the challenges are not just to establish small groups but for catholic churches to become family again.

Jaan, I can very well relate to your feelings on this. Many of our catholic church's are so large you get lost in the crowd, especially when you're an introvert like me.

Now sometimes I go with my husband to the Mennonite church.. They have only about 30 members, but they ALL know one another and are extremely friendly and supportive of one another. They REALLY reach out, but are not intrusive nor overstep their boundaries. And they are much like family... woshiping, praying, playing, BEING THERE.

Katy

Katy:

Yes, I'm not sure. There is just the importance of the Eucharist, to attend, and look for ways to contribute. I'm sometimes in the habit of looking for support, and the church in general is probably not a good place for that, sadly. And so it is an easy target, even if the issues are important ones personally.

I understand the attraction to small communities, but how much do issues like Sacraments and dogmatic tradition matter to you all? That's what matters most to me.

Even in the largest of communities, you can find or create options for small group gatherings. Don't expect the liturgy to meet those needs, however, as that's not what it's designed to do.

I am attending Quaker Meeting for worship right now, and hardly ever receive the Eucharist.i have had phases in my life where I went to the Catholic church down the street before I went to work and sat in the pews and let the liturgy wash over me.I felt like the liturgy fed me.I was an acolyte in the Episcopal church,and served several times a week.But now...I like praying before the Blessed Sacrament, and I do like going to the Episcopal church for worship,but right now the full hour of silence with the Quakers trumps.I meet with people for 1/2 hour contemplative prayer early in the morning at the Episcopal church, and I have been active as a Stephen minister there, and the priest preaches fantastic sermons, and I feel loved there, and love some people there, and...I like the silence best.I know quite a few of the folks at the Quaker meeting, too, I am not isolated, sitting off in a corner.It is also something that my husband loves to do with me, and that means a lot (and he will probably become a Member of the Meeting).