Culturally Christian, Spiritually Unlimited: A Unity Response to the Challenge of Postmodernism in Contemporary Theology
Thomas Shepherd, M.Div.
Unity is a Christian movement in search of its identity in a post-Christian, postmodernist world. Postmodernism is not an easy concept to nail down. According to the PBS website, Postmodernism is a “general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others.”
[1] Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes, “Those who attempt to define or to analyze the concept of postmodernism do so at their own peril.”
[2] Nevertheless, Vanhoozer proceeds to define and analyze postmodernism. If I am reading him correctly, Vanhoozer seems to be saying that, like the effect of an observer on the outcome in quantum physics, postmodernism holds that every definition is shaped by the definer.
[3] This is probably a good summary of a key element in understanding postmodernism.
.Another way to understand it centers around the concept of the metanarrative. French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard coined this term in his definition of postmodernism. A metanarrative is a grand narrative, a story used to explain all other stories and events in human existence. For example, the Exodus from Egypt in the Hebrew Bible provides a metanarrative for Jewish thought, after which the Children of Israel continually looked backward to this master story to interpret their lives. Be kind to the widows and orphans, because you were in bondage in Egypt and the Lord delivered you. Show justice and mercy, because when you were in Egypt the Pharaoh showed none to you. We are the people who crossed the Red Sea on dry land, therefore we trust in God no matter how impossible the situation seems to be. That’s a metanarrative.
.The more effective the metanarrative is at shaping the way people see themselves and their world, the less conscious of it will they be. For example, Americans tend to see themselves as a just and honorable people who keep their promises and who are respectful of others. We are the people who fled the crowded cities of Europe to seek a better life, religious freedom, and a chance for everyone to own a home and make a fortune. This is NOT the way many people around the world see Americans, especially after the collateral damage of the Iraqi War and our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
. Closer to home, we have become anything but a land where everyone is welcome. Millions of dollars are being spent to put up a fence to keep Mexicans out. Even more troubling is the jarring disrepair which has befallen our freedom of religion mythos.
.Look at what happened in the campaign which just ended today. When a major presidential candidate has to defend himself against claims he is a Muslim—against charges that he is a member of an ancient and deeply spiritual religion, a religious faith which gave us the university system and algebra and the concept that all people are created equal before God—there is a very different process at work here than the metanarrative of America as a melting pot would suggest. Why did Barack Obama not simply say, “I am a Christian, I am not a Muslim, but so what if I were?” Because he would have paid an unacceptable political price for making that statement. It was only Colin Powell—an African-American war hero and member of the opposition party, someone who is running for nothing this year—who was finally able to say:
"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she could be president?"
[4]Let me add that, although one of the reasons the American nation was founded was to guarantee religious freedom for all, America still has a long way to go before everyone understands the meaning of its national motto, E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Unity in diversity.
.Postmodern critics say these metanarratives, while culturally necessary, nevertheless cannot be trusted. In uncharacteristically simple terms, Lyotard said: “I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives.”
[5] These grand visions of what life is about are culturally determined myth-making and not absolute truth. There are no objectively true metanarratives, only stories we tell ourselves to bolster our courage for the trials of life. Let me hasten to add that metanarratives are not bad things. Humans need this kind of narrative framework rather desperately, in direct proportionality to how desperate life becomes. Take Viktor Frankl for example.
Viktor Frankl, a survivor of imprisonment in a concentration camp during WWII, in his book Man’s Search for Meaning (1984), identified meaning as a central factor enabling people to endure torture and injustice. The will to meaning is the focal structure of Frankl’s system of logotherapy according to which “man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a ‘secondary rationalization’ of instinctual drives” (p. 121).
[6]Postmodernism reduces the metanarrative to whistling in the dark. Nothing is objective; everything is shaped by culture, language, and experience. There is no vantage point which humans can attain to look down objectively on their circumstances and come up with universal truths. Whether one is contemplating literature or philosophy, art or architecture, thoughts about life or about God and the afterlife--where does one go to find an objective vantage point to evaluate a worldview, when the person considering these ideas is already inside a worldview which is shaped by language and culture? As I have said many times to my students, there are no tiger gods where there are no tigers.
[7]Universal Truth Non-Existent: Even This Truth?One could argue that this does not mean there are no universal truths, just that certainty about them is unavailable. However, postmodernism kicks aside that argument and asserts that, in fact, not only are universal truths unattainable, they are also non-existent. One of the most cogent definitions of postmodernism which I have encountered comes from the PBS website:
Postmodernism…is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.
[8]One problem postmodernism faces is it seems to have a thanatos, a death wish about its own ideas. It offers metaphysical critique of metaphysical systems by denying that metaphysics are possible. Its central principle is that there are no central principles. A metaphysical system that rejects the possibility of any systematic understanding of metaphysical reality is not unlike anarchists who suddenly come to power. How does one govern when government itself is the enemy? The snake eats its own tail. Back to the PBS definition:
Postmodernism is “post” because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody—a characteristic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning.
[9]Overlooking the self-contradictory nature of a radically postmodernist position and taking its elements separately, there are many things in postmodernism which sound surprisingly like New Thought Christianity.
Connie Fillmore’s Five PrinciplesFor example, the idea that humans create their own reality is quite similar to the fourth of Connie Fillmore’s five principles. Let me say a word about them before proceeding. These ideas are popularly called “The Five Unity Principles.” I am trying to be a good postmodern theologian here, which requires me to identify my source. It seems important to me that I call them “Connie Fillmore’s Five Principles.” Scholarly discipline requires me to cite the author and resist the temptation to declare this a Unity-wide statement. Unfortunately, the opposite tendency seems operational in Unity today, as these five ideas evolve toward an embryonic Unity creed.
.Please note that I am not blaming Connie Fillmore for this stampede toward creedal certainty, which postmodernism says is problematic at best. I am questioning the methodology of calling these ideas “Unity’s Five Principles” rather than simply attributing them the author. Calling them “Unity’s Five Principles” shuts off discussion, making it nearly impossible to critically analyze their content without sounding like you are attacking or at least “deconstructing” the Unity movement itself. Yet, it should be abundantly clear that Connie’s grandfather encouraged just this kind of critical thinking in his students.
.In fact, we have both the Fillmore co-founders, Charles and Myrtle, on record as endorsing theological discourse in the very early stages of their work. Before they were married, Charles and Myrtle carried on a cross-country correspondence which contains this comment by the future Mrs. Fillmore. In a letter to Charles, dated September 1, 1878, Myrtle Page writes:
You question my orthodoxy? Well, if I were called upon to write out my creed it would be rather a strange mixture. I am decidedly eclectic in my theology—is it not my right to be? Over all is a grand idea of God, but full of love and mercy.
[10]James Dillet Freeman writes in his book The Story of Unity the following description of Charles Fillmore’s teaching methods:
Often in his classes, a student would be answering a question and Mr. Fillmore would ask, “Where did you get that idea?” The student would reply, “I read that in such-and-such a Unity book, Mr. Fillmore.” “Are you sure?” “Certainly, Mr. Fillmore, that is right out of page so and so.” “You know,” he would say, “that is not exactly right,” and then he would go on to explain the point in a way that clarified it. Often in his classes, he would interrupt his students, when they were quoting him, with the question, “But what do YOU think about it?” The main aim of his teaching was to get his students to think Truth through for themselves.
[11]As Fordham University’s Avery Cardinal Dulles has said, “Theology begins with wonder and unanswered questions.”
[12].When Connie Fillmore summarized her theological view of basic Unity principles in the 1990 booklet Keys to the Kingdom: Five Fundamentals of Truth, this is how she described her fourth principle:
Human beings create their experience by the activity of their thinking. Everything in the manifest realm has its beginning in thought.
[13]The Association of Unity Churches International website paraphrases Ms. Fillmore’s fourth principle: “We are co-creators with God, creating reality through thoughts held in mind.”
[14]The difference between what Connie Fillmore is saying and the postmodernist view may seem subtle, however its actual divergence is far from insignificant. Postmodernism holds that we create an illusion of reality and live within those parameters for lack of an alternative. Ms. Fillmore holds that reality itself comes from the way we perceive it. Whereas postmodernism follows Kierkegaard and denies the possibility of a rational metaphysical system, Connie Fillmore goes beyond this and accepts the out-picturing of human consciousness as constitutional for reality itself. What we think is what we get. Thought is not just definitional, it is definitive, the mechanism by which everything exists. We do not create an abstract world of thought and live in it; we live in a concrete world created by thought.
.As with any metaphysical system, there are oceans of difficulties with this idea. If everyone is creating their own reality, how do they coexist side by side and maintain communications? The 1998 motion picture What Dreams May Come shows an afterlife in which everyone has the heaven of their dreams, creating the reality they want to experience and peopling it with whomever they want to attract. While this Hollywood version of the fourth principle is a lovely thought, it quickly deteriorates to contradiction and absurdity. What if you want an afterlife with a snow lodge and I want the sunny tropics? Does this mean all you get in your heaven is my doppelganger, a mere astral projection, or a cardboard cut-out of my likeness with none of my consciousness?
.Of course, one could argue that physical limitations are meaningless in a spiritual existence and the details will have been worked out by God long before we get there. However, when transplanting the discussion to a concrete existence on this side of the veil, the idea that everyone creates his or her own universe is frightfully difficult to maintain without a lot of imaginative apparatus and some degree of fantasy. I am not sure I want Osama bin Laden’s thoughts creating reality, and although we have never met I am equally certain Mr. bin Laden shares the same sentiment about me. One could argue that bin Laden and I are co-creating this world, because we could not exist in our present form without each other. Without the West, Islamic terrorism is a different kind of animal, just as giraffes probably would not have evolved without leafy trees to browse for lunch. I am uncertain whether that analogy really works, or whether I am the tree or the giraffe, but you get the point about the function of symbiosis in evolutionary development.
Boldly ChoosingFormer Notre Dame head football coach Lou Holtz said, “Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”
[15]Taking the challenge of postmodernism seriously—assuming that people really get to chose the world in which they live, and by the choosing actually create it—then I choose the idealistic world of humanity as one family. In this regard I am proud of the irrepressible optimism of the New Thought Christian churches and of religious progressives from many traditions. To its credit and despite wars and rumors of wars, Unity never relinquished the optimistic, monistic, idealistic vision of transcendentalism. Our writers and theologians still affirm the divine nature of humanity, taking seriously the imago Dei regardless of appearances to the contrary. The prophetic tradition within our movement aims at calling people to the higher vision of their potential as sons and daughters of God. We see all sentient beings as fully divine and fully human, to include the main example of this indwelling divinity, Jesus of Nazareth.
.Such a prophetic word from our tradition, properly explored by theological reflection and communicated via modern networking, has the potential to transform the consciousness of humanity, one person at a time. The outrageous possibilities of such a claim remain unexplored today because the potential apologists for Metaphysical Christianity are unequipped to play in the major leagues of theological dialogue. In fact, one could argue that Unity’s longstanding aversion for intellectual discourse indicates we have yet to show up for spring training. To communicate a prophetic vision today requires an understanding of contemporary issues and their antecedents, plus the ability to translate one’s insights into the common language of Christian theology.
Deconstructing an Anti-Intellectual Bias
Historically speaking—and now I am going to move into a little creative deconstruction—Unity has been rather anti-intellectual and anti-traditionalist. This tendency has kept the insights, ideas and tools available to clergy and religious scholars from mainstream Protestant and Catholic traditions from finding their way into our branch of Protestant Christianity. Even among the ordained Unity clergy, there is almost no tradition of theological reflection, no widespread understanding of modern biblical scholarship, little sense of church history, and an appalling lack of awareness about the very tools required to make our gifts available to a wider Christian world. The intellect has been described as inferior to, and often in conflict with, intuitive insights gleaned in personal meditation.
.Again and again, Unity foundational writings take a swipe at the intellectual approach to religion, like this question in the study guide of Fillmore’s 1939 book, Jesus Christ Heals: “Is it better to seek understanding through intellectual reasoning or through divine inspiration?”
[16] Note the dichotomy; the choice is between trusting your limited human intelligence (intellectual reasoning) and trusting God (divine inspiration). Since dialogue among biblical scholars and theologians provides a context of continuity for the Christian community, it is precisely this juxtaposition of intellectual reasoning over and against divine inspiration which has perpetuated Unity’s isolation; we have been an archipelago somewhere over the horizon, far from the mainland of Christian thought.
.With no seat at the table where the ongoing discussion of Christian theology is taking place, it is not surprising that Unity is often evaluated
in absentia, decried as a cult by members of the Religious Right, or dismissed as light-weight positive thinking by mainstream churches. The price we have paid for refusing to think deeply and critically about basic metaphysical ideas is painfully summarized by one of Unity’s few practicing teachers of religion in an institution of higher learning, Dr. Paul Alan Laughlin. Dr. Laughlin is professor of Religion and Philosophy at Otterbein College, a Jesus Seminar Fellow, and an ordained Unity minister. Laughlin contends this adverse reputation is partially because Unity lacks a tradition of theological reflection, which has kept its main ideas unexplored.
[17].Some of those distinctive ideas include a tradition of mysticism, spiritual healing, introspective meditation and affirmative prayer; a thoroughgoing monism which proclaims no power exists except God-power; identification of the Christ as the divine within each person; and a relentlessly positive attitude despite all appearances to the contrary. These are great theological concepts, yet despite Charles Fillmore’s example of thinking creatively about great ideas, Unity people have too often settled for fill-in-the-blank repetition, restating and meditating upon its ideas without critical reflection. Laughlin writes in the Westar Institute’s Fourth R magazine:
I am sad to say that the healthy spiritual introspection and introversion of mysticism has often failed in practice (in New Thought churches). Unfortunately, it too easily degenerates into a thinly veiled egotism and produces a superficial, sentimental, self-serving, and self-aggrandizing jingoism and happy-babble that can aptly be termed “Hallmark holiness.” Further, New Thought organizations have tended to eschew traditional academic education and theology, leaving their key concepts underdeveloped.
[18]Some theologians, myself included, have always believed that an informed and intellectually grounded spirituality is both the deepest and most practical expression of one’s faith. According to Mark’s gospel, the First Commandment given by Jesus includes an intellectual component:
One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
[19]At the AUCI People’s Convention held in June 2007, Unity President and CEO Charlotte Shelton observed that Unity Institute’s movement toward becoming a fully accredited theological seminary “gives us a seat at the table for important international theological discussions.” Dr. Shelton brought the cheering delegates to their feet with these words:
"I humbly suggest that as a movement we have longed to have greater impact on the world while also refusing to honor the rules for doing so. It’s causing many of us to play small–way small. I, for one, am ready for Unity to step up to its rightful role of influence on the world stage. And I know many of you are as well. And, as we individually and collectively raise our consciousness about what is ours to do, our opportunities for growth and greater influence will flow to us like bees to honey."
[20]It is interesting that Dr. Shelton paired “opportunities for growth and greater influence” as the results of Unity’s movement toward academic accreditation. She appears to agree that the same kind of mutual benefit which I have envisioned will accrue from engaging Unity in “important international theological discussions.”
.As Unity grows from encountering the ideas of others, it will exert greater influence through the newfound ability to speak the language of theological discourse. Reading Dr. Shelton’s remarks, one biblical text which immediately springs to my mind is the call of Abram, “I will bless you...so that you will be a blessing.”
[21]How Christian is Unity?How will Unity interact with a global society in a postmodern world? The major question which we have not yet begun to address theologically is how Christian is Unity, and how Christian should it be? Today, New Thought Christianity stands at a crossroads, pondering this momentous decision: Shall we affirm the Judeo-Christian metanarrative, however imperfect, modifying it for a postmodern age, or toss it aside in favor of an emerging interfaith synthesis? How will Unity and other New Thought Christian groups integrate their ideas into a world where Internet sites, like Beliefnet.com, are making more and more people aware of the multitude of religious perspectives within the human family?
.Let me begin by announcing my biases: I hold that Unity is a Christian movement which needs to get in touch with its intellectual heritage in order to establish itself as an authentic expression of the faith in the postmodern world. The established historical fact is that, just as Jesus was born inside the Jewish metanarrative, the Unity movement was born inside the Christian worldview. However, neither Jesus nor the founders of New Thought Christianity had any inclination to be bound to the current interpretations of what that metanarrative meant in the world in which they lived. Jesus carefully reinterpreted the Hebrew scriptures, and every successful reformer who has come after him has followed the same model. Reinterpret, stretch the limits, shape the metanarrative by pushing out the walls rather than burning down the building.
.Charles and Myrtle Fillmore were careful not to reject a single major Christian doctrine, although they reserved the right to reinterpret the symbols of the ancient metanarrative to reflect a nineteenth century, Hegelian-transcendentalist-Newtonian consciousness. Today, we face the same challenge within the twenty-first century, to bring our metanarrative in line with our Teilhardian-panentheistic-quantum postmodern consciousness.
Biblical AnalogyA biblical parallel might be found in the situation of the Apostle Paul as he looked outward at the Hellenistic world from his Jewish heritage. Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, schooled in minute interpretations of the Jewish Law. However, instead of insisting that the Greek-speaking majority of the Roman world must convert to Judaism before becoming Christians, Paul emphasized faith in Jesus as the key to membership in the Kingdom of God. That meant gentile males did not have to go under a rabbi’s knife to inherit the faith of Israel; the Old Covenant was renewed and extended through the world-embracing, self-sacrificial love of Jesus Christ. This preached well in a world where people hungered for meaning. As ancient pagan institutions crumbled around them to be replaced by Caesar worship, educated Greeks and Romans were chasing mystery cults and reading Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures.
.The metanarrative was changing, and Paul snuck into the control room and reprogrammed the Christian message to work in this time and place. However far afield his reinterpretations of Judaism took Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles considered himself a Jew all the days of his life. One could say Paul was culturally Jewish but spiritually unlimited. This became increasingly hard for subsequent generations of Christians to affirm, partially because the majority of the new believers had never been Jews in the first place but also because Palestinian Judaism rose in two bloody rebellions against Rome. Because people tend to lump everyone together, as we have seen in Colin Powell’s comments— Jews everywhere began to look like the Taliban in the eyes of the cosmopolitan Hellenistic world. This was an unfair prejudice, but it accelerated the distance between Christianity’s Jewish birthplace and its new home as a thoroughly Greco-Roman mystery religion.
.Yet, even as Hellenistic Christians divorced themselves from the people of Moses, the faith of Jesus continued to wear its wedding ring to Judaism; the Jewish Bible and the History of Israel would now become a Christian story. The metanarrative had changed.
Culturally Christian, Spiritually UnlimitedNeither Jesus not Paul, neither nor Meister Eckhart nor Martin Luther, neither Ralph Waldo Emerson nor Charles Fillmore simply rejected their heritage and fled to another religion, or tried to build a new religion from pieces sliced from other living faiths. They acknowledged their respective heritages, critiqued the metanarrative, and offered a new direction beginning on the established path upon which they stood. What I am suggesting is that today the model for New Thought churches going forward into the twenty-first century is better served by recognizing, as have the great reform movements on the past, that Unity is a descendent from earlier metanarratives. One can see this connection even from a casual reading of history. Unity as a Movement accepts that people of other faiths also have a connection to the divine, both within themselves and in the life and history of their religious traditions. As Unity people acknowledge these two ideas—its indebtedness to the cultural and intellectual heritage of Christianity and its openness to truth from whatever source is flows—we can see that the Unity movement is culturally Christian, spiritually unlimited.
.This is where postmodern thought can help Unity and all those who are rightly averse to the toxic fumes of Christian fundamentalism. By acknowledging that truth is not one but many, religious progressives are able to be faithfully Christian without intellectual compromise. I am able to call Jesus Christ my Lord and even my Savior (Greek, soter – deliverer, healer). Regardless of how differently other persons may understand those terms does not affect the truth they speak for me. It is those two words, for me, which frees postmodern Christianity from dogmatism while acknowledging the power of Jesus Christ in shaping individual consciousness.
.There is a kind of smug naiveté which comes from being information poor, and we are not immune to this tendency. Even original thinkers like Eric Butterworth—whom I greatly admire—can fall into this spiritual ego-trap when writing about Unity’s place in the family of Christian religions. Butterworth distinguishes between religion about Jesus and the religion of Jesus. He thought that all it took was to read the gospels “as they have been written” to get the pure, original meaning of the faith of Jesus. Coincidentally, this pure, original faith is exactly what Unity teaches.
[22] Of course, the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and the Russian Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod all believe they are teaching the religion of Jesus while everyone else us merely following a man-made religion about Jesus. Again, postmodern theology comes to the rescue by reminding all players that no one has an exclusive claim on Jesus because every claim has self-authenticating validity for every person who accepts it. Lacking an objective place from which to adjudicate among the competing claims of various Christian traditions, the postmodernist is obliged to regard them as equal, or at least equally worthy of critical review. Historically speaking, the only person who ever really followed the religion of Jesus was Jesus himself, and as already noted, he was a Jew.
Critical Thought without Absolute CertaintyHowever, if one acknowledges the subjective nature of truth, what grounds does anyone have to evaluate the claims of any system of belief? One solution is that each person presents a subjective account of what works for him or her, clarifying what the presenter finds adaptive and maladaptive in contemporary thought. This person-centered point of view then dialogues with other subjective evaluations of truth, and through the process everyone refines and corrects his or her ideas in the light of new insights, all of which nevertheless remain individual and subjective.
.Postmodern Christianity describes a faith lacking finality in any theological view, regardless of how basic and essential it may appear. This does not preclude a belief in universal truth, merely that such belief must be understood as a faith position, which is itself subject to cultural influences. Furthermore, I would argue that Unity, viewed as a postmodern form of New Thought Christianity, can firmly hold to the belief in universal truths—e.g., God is One Presence and One Power—as long as Unity people are courageous enough and fully aware enough to acknowledge that even this idea is a subjective element in a culturally shaped worldview. I absolutely believe God is Absolute Good, even though I am absolutely sure there is no way to be absolutely sure of it. Perhaps that is why they call it faith.
The Challenge ContinuesThe challenge of postmodernism is that we must continue to explore religious practices and spiritual ideas while realizing that all our theologies are the products of our best understanding in the current slice of time. This can be an empowering insight, giving future generations the absolute mandate to critically evaluate everything we say and do and to find the truth that works for them in whatever universe they build from their consciousness. Education is a lifelong, perhaps eternity-long, process. As Charles Fillmore said in 1941, “The minister who thinks his education is complete when he leaves the theological seminary never becomes a great teacher of men.”
[23].Today, sixty-seven years later, this footnote in Unity’s metanarrative would be amended to read: “….men or women…” The absolute uncertainty of postmodernism suggests the need to continue the discussion relentlessly. For those of us who love ideas, this is a very good thing, indeed.
____________________________________________________
NOTES:[1] Unsigned article, PBS website http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html (Accessed 10-30-08).
[2] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed.,
Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge, UK: 2003), 3.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Colin Powell, in Jason Linkins “Colin Powell Invokes the Image of a Fallen Soldier,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-invokes-imag_n_135977.html (Accessed 11-01-08)
[5] Perry Anderson,
The Origins of Postmodernity, (NY: Verso Books, 1998), 24–27.
[6] Justin A. Irving and Karin Klenke, “Telos, Chronos, and Hermēneia: The Role of Metanarrative in Leadership Effectiveness through the Production of Meaning,”
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (3), September 2004, p. 11.
[7] Edward Scribner Ames,
The Psychology of Religious Experience, (NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1910), 47. Old maxim in social science.
[8] PBS website http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html (Accessed 10-30-08).
[9] Ibid.
[10] Myrtle Page, unpublished letter to Charles Fillmore, dated September 1, 1878 (Source: Unity Archives).
[11] James Dillet Freeman,
The Story of Unity, (Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1978), 170-171.
[12] Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, from a printed sign in the elevator at St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City, MO. Referenced 10-30-08.
[13] Connie Fillmore, “An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” in
Keys to the Kingdom booklet (Unity Village, MO: Unity publications,1990),5.
[14] http://www.unity.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=5%20Principles&category=About%20Us Accessed 10-17-08
[15] Lou Holtz, http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/2006/09/Lou-Holtzs-Life-Lessons.aspx (Accessed 11-01-08).
[16] Charles Fillmore,
Jesus Christ Heals (Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1939), 202.
[17] Paul Alan Laughlin, “Putting the Historical Jesus in His Place, Part I – A New Thought Christian Perspective,”
The Fourth R, January-February 2006.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Mark 12:28-34, NRSV.
[20] Charlotte Shelton, quoted in Unity Monday Bulletin for 07-02-07, e-mail publication, Unity Village.
[21] Genesis 12:2, NRSV.
[22] Eric Butterworth,
Discover the Power Within You (NY: HarperCollins, 1992), 14.
[23] Charles Fillmore and Cora Dedrick Fillmore,
Teach Us to Pray, (Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1941), 162-163
__________________________________________________________
Selected BibliographyAnderson, Perry.
The Origins of Postmodernity. NY: Verso Books, 1998.
Butterworth, Eric.
Discover the Power Within You. NY: HarperCollins, 1992.
Cady, H. Emilie.
Lessons in Truth. Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1903.
Chidester, David.
Christianity: A Global History. NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.
Fillmore, Charles.
Dynamics for Living. Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1967.
Fillmore, Charles and Cora Dedrick Fillmore.
Teach Us to Pray. Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1941.
________.
Jesus Christ Heals, 1939.
________.
The Revealing Word, 1959.
Fillmore, Connie. “An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” in Keys to the Kingdom booklet. Unity Village, MO: Unity publications, 1990.
Freeman, James Dillet. The Story of Unity. Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1978.
Irving, Justin A. and Karin Klenke. “Telos, Chronos, and Hermēneia: The Role of Metanarrative in Leadership Effectiveness through the Production of Meaning.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (3), 09/04.
Laughlin, Paul Alan. “Putting the Historical Jesus in His Place, Part I – A New Thought Christian Perspective.” The Fourth R, January-February 2006.
McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1960.
Shepherd, Thomas W. Glimpses of Truth: Systematic Theology from a Metaphysical Christian Perspective. Miami, FL: UFBL Books, 2000.
Scribner, Edward Ames. The Psychology of Religious Experience. NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1910.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. ed. Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. Cambridge, UK, 2003.
Why did people build the first towns? Seems like an easy question: they found places where economic factors made it possible to produce and store more food, safely raise their children, and carry on the shared, diversified responsibilities of village life. As these rural communities grew, walls were needed to protect small towns from human mauraders and wild beasts, especially in the night. Gods and magical spirits were invoked to guarantee fertility, enhance the harvest, and protect these proto-cities from natural and man-made calamities. The ancients believed the balance between heaven and earth must be maintained by human action to demonstrate fidelity with the divine forces. So, altars of sacrifice blossomed, and religious semi-professionals (shamans) became priests and priestesses. This led to the construction of permanent shrines and temples for this purpose. 
doesn't say it stongly enough. The complex is seven thousand years older than the Great Pyramid and six thousand years senior to Stonehenge. The ruins are so ancient they predate villages, pottery, domesticated animals, and even agriculture. 
Schmidt's thesis is that people must have been gathering at ceremonial sites for ages before they decided to formalize the place of worship with stone structures. The temple came first. 
