Francis Berger's Blog, page 76
February 23, 2022
Dallas Good of The Sadies Has Died
Dallas Good was the guitarist, singer, and co-founder of The Sadies, a Canadian alt-country-rock bank that never made it big, but toured relentlessly for two decades and collaborated with many better known artists including Neil Young, Niko Case, Kurt Vile, and Gord Downie. I have featured some of their songs on this blog: here, and here.
Dallas and I attended the same high school. He was a couple of years younger than I, which meant we did not mix in the same groups of kids. We were "nodding" acquaintances rather than friends, but I still have vivid memories of him trudging through the halls in a leather jacket and cowboy boots, his guitar case banging off his bony knees with every step he took. On the weekends I occasionally caught sight of him playing in some garage band or other. Years later I was fortunate enough to attend some of the concerts he put on with The Sadies, the band he formed with his older brother Travis.
Dallas died "unexpectedly" five days ago at the age of 48. The news (surprisingly) made the mainstream media, which reported that he had died of "natural causes" due to a recently discovered "coronary ailment". I won't wade into any speculation here. All I will say is this -- I hope his death was not a "coincidence".
My deepest condolences to his family and loved ones.
In the video below, Dallas is the one who introduces the band.
Dallas and I attended the same high school. He was a couple of years younger than I, which meant we did not mix in the same groups of kids. We were "nodding" acquaintances rather than friends, but I still have vivid memories of him trudging through the halls in a leather jacket and cowboy boots, his guitar case banging off his bony knees with every step he took. On the weekends I occasionally caught sight of him playing in some garage band or other. Years later I was fortunate enough to attend some of the concerts he put on with The Sadies, the band he formed with his older brother Travis.
Dallas died "unexpectedly" five days ago at the age of 48. The news (surprisingly) made the mainstream media, which reported that he had died of "natural causes" due to a recently discovered "coronary ailment". I won't wade into any speculation here. All I will say is this -- I hope his death was not a "coincidence".
My deepest condolences to his family and loved ones.
In the video below, Dallas is the one who introduces the band.
February 22, 2022
Freedom is Alignment, Not Submission
“Instead of taking mastery of people's freedom, you increased it and burdened the spiritual kingdom of man with it forever.”
This line above is the accusation the grand inquisitor hurls at Jesus in The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor segment of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. The charge forms the basis of what the old cardinal outlines as the fatal error of Christ’s mission on earth – Jesus’ overestimation of humanity’s willingness and ability to embrace the “increased” freedom He offered them.
The old cardinal then outlines how his church had spent the previous fifteen hundred years correcting Jesus’ work through the three temptations Christ had resisted in the desert: miracle, mystery, and authority. The grand inquisitor and his church work to decrease human freedom and take mastery of it because – unlike Jesus – they do not think highly of man at all.
On the contrary, they profess to see humanity as it truly is – eternally depraved and eternally dishonorable. Weak, rebellious, slavish, – utterly incapable of freedom. Thus, the church’s corrective work aims to unburden humanity of the freedom Christ offers. Moreover, it actively presents people with the opportunity to surrender real freedom in exchange for the faux freedom of trembling submission to the external miracle, mystery, and authority of the church.
Dostoevsky’s The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor on the Nature Man is more than an incisive piece of fiction; it is a penetrating insight into the essence -- the what-it-is -- of Christianity.
To understand the what-it-is of Christianity is to understand the increased freedom Jesus offers, which, in my humble opinion, amounts to a completely new way of thinking about the nature of human freedom itself.
Jesus’s refusal to adopt miracle, mystery, and authority as means through which to draw men toward His offer of heaven and everlasting life reveals not only His deep love for and high esteem of humanity, but also His deep love for and high esteem of freedom. Within the context of the story, humanity and freedom are presented as inseparable. Any degradation of freedom is a degradation of humanity; and any degradation of humanity is a degradation of freedom.
Yet the grand inquisitor’s assessment of humanity as a rebellious, weak, slavish species that desires everything but freedom seems to strike much closer to the truth than Christ’s respect for humanity as beings capable of true freedom. Within the context of the story itself, humanity would rather dwell within the faux freedom of the inquisitor’s church than to dare obtain the increased freedom Christ offers – but this “reality” is not limited to the story!
Look at our world today. How many people really want to be free? How many would rather willingly enslave themselves to anything and everything external in exchange for the peace and worldly comfort of being unfree?
Speaking of peace and worldly comfort, the inquisitor insists his church provides both. Moreover, this provision proves that he and his church are more compassionate than Christ is. Rather than burden humanity with high expectations that can never be fulfilled, the “corrected work” seeks to meet men where they are and keep them there – in peace and comfort that leads nowhere but death.
Our current situation in the world is the fulfillment of the grand inquisitor’s vision of humanity: “Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom for us and submit to us. And what does it matter whether we are right or whether, we are telling a lie?”
The “freedom” that comes with submission and renouncing freedom is the call of the satanic totalitarianism that engulfed the world in 2020.
The increased freedom Christ offers is the revelation of the innate divinity of man aligning with the divinity of God in freedom that is “created” by neither God nor man, but upon which both depend and through which both can create – together.
This line above is the accusation the grand inquisitor hurls at Jesus in The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor segment of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. The charge forms the basis of what the old cardinal outlines as the fatal error of Christ’s mission on earth – Jesus’ overestimation of humanity’s willingness and ability to embrace the “increased” freedom He offered them.
The old cardinal then outlines how his church had spent the previous fifteen hundred years correcting Jesus’ work through the three temptations Christ had resisted in the desert: miracle, mystery, and authority. The grand inquisitor and his church work to decrease human freedom and take mastery of it because – unlike Jesus – they do not think highly of man at all.
On the contrary, they profess to see humanity as it truly is – eternally depraved and eternally dishonorable. Weak, rebellious, slavish, – utterly incapable of freedom. Thus, the church’s corrective work aims to unburden humanity of the freedom Christ offers. Moreover, it actively presents people with the opportunity to surrender real freedom in exchange for the faux freedom of trembling submission to the external miracle, mystery, and authority of the church.
Dostoevsky’s The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor on the Nature Man is more than an incisive piece of fiction; it is a penetrating insight into the essence -- the what-it-is -- of Christianity.
To understand the what-it-is of Christianity is to understand the increased freedom Jesus offers, which, in my humble opinion, amounts to a completely new way of thinking about the nature of human freedom itself.
Jesus’s refusal to adopt miracle, mystery, and authority as means through which to draw men toward His offer of heaven and everlasting life reveals not only His deep love for and high esteem of humanity, but also His deep love for and high esteem of freedom. Within the context of the story, humanity and freedom are presented as inseparable. Any degradation of freedom is a degradation of humanity; and any degradation of humanity is a degradation of freedom.
Yet the grand inquisitor’s assessment of humanity as a rebellious, weak, slavish species that desires everything but freedom seems to strike much closer to the truth than Christ’s respect for humanity as beings capable of true freedom. Within the context of the story itself, humanity would rather dwell within the faux freedom of the inquisitor’s church than to dare obtain the increased freedom Christ offers – but this “reality” is not limited to the story!
Look at our world today. How many people really want to be free? How many would rather willingly enslave themselves to anything and everything external in exchange for the peace and worldly comfort of being unfree?
Speaking of peace and worldly comfort, the inquisitor insists his church provides both. Moreover, this provision proves that he and his church are more compassionate than Christ is. Rather than burden humanity with high expectations that can never be fulfilled, the “corrected work” seeks to meet men where they are and keep them there – in peace and comfort that leads nowhere but death.
Our current situation in the world is the fulfillment of the grand inquisitor’s vision of humanity: “Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom for us and submit to us. And what does it matter whether we are right or whether, we are telling a lie?”
The “freedom” that comes with submission and renouncing freedom is the call of the satanic totalitarianism that engulfed the world in 2020.
The increased freedom Christ offers is the revelation of the innate divinity of man aligning with the divinity of God in freedom that is “created” by neither God nor man, but upon which both depend and through which both can create – together.
February 21, 2022
Early Medieval England in Hungary
I recently began watching The Last Kingdom television series based on Bernard Cornwell's The Saxon Stories novels, which are set in ninth-century England. I won't say much about the series other than I have found it enjoyable for entertainment value alone; however, as I watched the episodes I often found myself wondering where exactly the series had been filmed.
Well lo and behold, it turns out most of the series has been shot in Hungary of all places. Although the lower production costs together with some ready-made sets in the small town of Etyek near Budapest were undoubtedly the primary incentives, I suspect the pastoral Hungarian countryside -- some parts of which still look as if they were back in the ninth century -- also held some appeal.
Ninth-century England in Hungary. Whodathunkit?
Well lo and behold, it turns out most of the series has been shot in Hungary of all places. Although the lower production costs together with some ready-made sets in the small town of Etyek near Budapest were undoubtedly the primary incentives, I suspect the pastoral Hungarian countryside -- some parts of which still look as if they were back in the ninth century -- also held some appeal.
Ninth-century England in Hungary. Whodathunkit?
February 20, 2022
Is Christian Consciousness a Done Deal or Is It Still Developing?
Christian consciousness can roughly be defined as the way Christians think about, understand, and relate to God, Creation, themselves, and others.
The big question is whether Christian consciousness possesses the ability to expand, develop, and grow.
If it doesn't, then Christians already have everything they need to think about, understand, and relate to God, Creation, themselves, and others.
If it does, then how Christians think about, understand, and relate to God is open to further expansion, development, growth.
The two possibilities inevitably lead to very different "sets" of metaphysical assumptions, both of which are Christian.
The major difference between the two sets of assumptions comes down to a matter of meaning and purpose.
The question of Christian consciousness is the question of what Christianity is ultimately aiming for.
The big question is whether Christian consciousness possesses the ability to expand, develop, and grow.
If it doesn't, then Christians already have everything they need to think about, understand, and relate to God, Creation, themselves, and others.
If it does, then how Christians think about, understand, and relate to God is open to further expansion, development, growth.
The two possibilities inevitably lead to very different "sets" of metaphysical assumptions, both of which are Christian.
The major difference between the two sets of assumptions comes down to a matter of meaning and purpose.
The question of Christian consciousness is the question of what Christianity is ultimately aiming for.
February 19, 2022
Briefly on the Matter of Spiritual Pride
I am not referring to the Luciferean sort of spiritual pride that declares man to be greater than God or that refuses to acknowledge the majesty and goodness God or that rejects God outright, but rather to the sorts of accusatory labels Christians fondly affix onto others whenever they are confronted by doctrinal differences or metaphysical disagreements.
Mainstream Christians regard anything that strays too far from the conventional Christian path as error, sin, or a combination of both.
They are suspicious of motivations to explore beyond well-established Christian boundaries and tend to consider such motivations to be "prideful".
As far as they are concerned, everything that can be known about Christianity has already been revealed. Thinking otherwise amounts to nothing more than arrogance and conceit, which can only be countered by a healthy dose of spiritual humility.
For example, challenge the traditional belief in the omnipotence of God and mainstream Christians will respond that such ideas do not stem from any potential deficiency in God, but rather from the very obvious deficiencies of man; from some errant, prideful humanistic attitude that erroneously dares to exalt man at the expense of God.
Pressed further, mainstream Christians will eventually assert that a non-omnipotent Christian God would repudiate the core essence of Christianity and make God un-worshipable.
Thus, an omnipotent God is the only sort of God mainstream Christians deem worthy of their human veneration.
But that's not an example of spiritual pride. No way.
Note added: I have no problem with Christians who believe in the omnipotence of God. Similarly, I have no problem with Christians who believe God may not be omnipotent. I believe a person can be a good, serious Christian either way.
Mainstream Christians regard anything that strays too far from the conventional Christian path as error, sin, or a combination of both.
They are suspicious of motivations to explore beyond well-established Christian boundaries and tend to consider such motivations to be "prideful".
As far as they are concerned, everything that can be known about Christianity has already been revealed. Thinking otherwise amounts to nothing more than arrogance and conceit, which can only be countered by a healthy dose of spiritual humility.
For example, challenge the traditional belief in the omnipotence of God and mainstream Christians will respond that such ideas do not stem from any potential deficiency in God, but rather from the very obvious deficiencies of man; from some errant, prideful humanistic attitude that erroneously dares to exalt man at the expense of God.
Pressed further, mainstream Christians will eventually assert that a non-omnipotent Christian God would repudiate the core essence of Christianity and make God un-worshipable.
Thus, an omnipotent God is the only sort of God mainstream Christians deem worthy of their human veneration.
But that's not an example of spiritual pride. No way.
Note added: I have no problem with Christians who believe in the omnipotence of God. Similarly, I have no problem with Christians who believe God may not be omnipotent. I believe a person can be a good, serious Christian either way.
February 18, 2022
The "Freedom From God" Era is Over
One simple way to think about the second millennium of Western history is from the perspective of two overarching struggles – freedom for God and freedom from God.
Freedom for God antagonisms trace the splintering of Christianity into various churches and denominations. The impetus driving the splintering centered largely on objections to religious authority and corruptions of religious authority. The conflicts played out through various theological and ecclesiastical disagreements as well as political, cultural, and social differences within Christendom.
Although the original religious authority – the Catholic Church – tended to regard such objections as open and hostile rebellion against God’s divine order, the various factions that succeeded in breaking away from the church – and, subsequently, splintering even further – were not fueled by anti-God motivations. On the contrary, the fragmentation of Christianity was motivated largely by the desire to expand freedom for God.
The establishment process involved making physical and cultural space for the new freedom for God manifestations. Old forms were modified or abandoned; new ones introduced.
Those who remained committed to older forms of freedom for God were often excluded or persecuted, but those adhering to the newer forms were granted the space needed to thrive. Despite conflicts and bloodshed, nearly every person in the West remained under some form of freedom for God.
The idea of freedom from God remained anathema – culturally, socially, and politically. Freedom for God did not aim to despiritualize humanity. All freedom for God struggles maintained the sanctity of man as a spiritual being – the understanding that the spiritual aspect of man was an integral part of his humanity.
Unlike freedom for God struggles – which aimed to maintain Christianity in the West and the spiritual aspects inherent in man, albeit in differing ways and forms – freedom from God struggles centered on the longing to banish Christianity and God from Western civilization altogether. The idea was simple. The spiritual aspect of man was a dangerous, superstitious illusion that hindered natural man from actualizing a peak form of humanity.
Freedom from God achieved its first major victory during the French Revolution and eventually went on to conquer the West via Enlightenment principles – liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state – all of which placed the value of non-spiritual human happiness above the value of Christianity. Freedom for God – the firm awareness of the spiritual aspect of humanity – was pushed from the stage of public life and relegated to a matter of private and personal choice.
Western civilization began to transform into a civilization based on the personal autonomy of man and his inviolable natural rights and freedoms. The state, with all of its mechanisms of power, set about carving out a civilization based purely on man’s freedom from God. It not only endorsed this new form of freedom, it eventually demanded it.
The traditional forces of freedom for God resisted and reacted primarily via what became known as the “culture wars”, but the resistance was mostly a rearguard action. By the middle of the 20th century, it had become evident that the “culture wars” were lost.
After two thousand years, the West had managed to free itself from God. Christian churches attempted to maintain some semblance of being free for God, but after the 2020 global totalitarian coup, most revealed themselves to firmly on the side against freedom for God. Western man had been effectively despiritualized.
On the surface, it would appear that the freedom from God side – replete with its humanism, democracy, toleration, fraternity, materialism, and all the rest of it – has won a decisive victory, as evidenced by some traditional/conservative factions of the ever-shrinking freedom for God side that continues to rage against liberalism, etc.,
This is true to some degree. The freedom from God side has indeed won a decisive victory, but this decisive victory is also marks a devastating defeat for all the “natural human” principles upon which freedom from God was built.
Now that Western man has been decisively despiritualized, the freedom from God forces have set their sights squarely on the next task – systematic dehumanization.
This systematic dehumanization involves directly violating all the human rights and freedoms that were once touted as inviolable to maintain the dignity of natural man.
Personal autonomy? Gone. Liberalism, democracy, humanism, progress? All finished. Human rights? The “natural” ones have been axed. Only heinous and perverted faux rights promoted and defended. Religious freedom? You’re kidding, right? Freedom of movement? Just plain "freedom". Whatever. The list is long and sad.
Freedom from God has been toppled by Slavery to the System.
Freedom from God involved the despiritualization of the West, which was a form of dehumanization.
Slavery to the System involves the total dehumanization of the West -- the stripping of all supposed "natural" human rights, values, and freedoms.
Freedom for God – the understanding that the spiritual aspect of man must be regarded as primary for man to be considered fully human – is the only “real” freedom left.
But where does this freedom for God reside? What will it hope to do?
It certainly does not reside in the external forms of freedom for God because these external forms – once utterly inseparable from the very fabric of Western civilization and the Western spirit – have all willingly and actively joined the System, which means they are all willingly and actively pursuing the System objective of total dehumanization.
So where does freedom for God exist now? For what will it aim?
Well, it will have to aim for God, and it will have to do so from freedom -- freedom that does not depend on anything external whatsoever.
It will have to emerge from the recognition that the goal of freedom for God is freedom with God.
But this entails an entirely different way of thinking about freedom -- not as something granted to us from God, but as something we share and have always shared with God.
Freedom for God antagonisms trace the splintering of Christianity into various churches and denominations. The impetus driving the splintering centered largely on objections to religious authority and corruptions of religious authority. The conflicts played out through various theological and ecclesiastical disagreements as well as political, cultural, and social differences within Christendom.
Although the original religious authority – the Catholic Church – tended to regard such objections as open and hostile rebellion against God’s divine order, the various factions that succeeded in breaking away from the church – and, subsequently, splintering even further – were not fueled by anti-God motivations. On the contrary, the fragmentation of Christianity was motivated largely by the desire to expand freedom for God.
The establishment process involved making physical and cultural space for the new freedom for God manifestations. Old forms were modified or abandoned; new ones introduced.
Those who remained committed to older forms of freedom for God were often excluded or persecuted, but those adhering to the newer forms were granted the space needed to thrive. Despite conflicts and bloodshed, nearly every person in the West remained under some form of freedom for God.
The idea of freedom from God remained anathema – culturally, socially, and politically. Freedom for God did not aim to despiritualize humanity. All freedom for God struggles maintained the sanctity of man as a spiritual being – the understanding that the spiritual aspect of man was an integral part of his humanity.
Unlike freedom for God struggles – which aimed to maintain Christianity in the West and the spiritual aspects inherent in man, albeit in differing ways and forms – freedom from God struggles centered on the longing to banish Christianity and God from Western civilization altogether. The idea was simple. The spiritual aspect of man was a dangerous, superstitious illusion that hindered natural man from actualizing a peak form of humanity.
Freedom from God achieved its first major victory during the French Revolution and eventually went on to conquer the West via Enlightenment principles – liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state – all of which placed the value of non-spiritual human happiness above the value of Christianity. Freedom for God – the firm awareness of the spiritual aspect of humanity – was pushed from the stage of public life and relegated to a matter of private and personal choice.
Western civilization began to transform into a civilization based on the personal autonomy of man and his inviolable natural rights and freedoms. The state, with all of its mechanisms of power, set about carving out a civilization based purely on man’s freedom from God. It not only endorsed this new form of freedom, it eventually demanded it.
The traditional forces of freedom for God resisted and reacted primarily via what became known as the “culture wars”, but the resistance was mostly a rearguard action. By the middle of the 20th century, it had become evident that the “culture wars” were lost.
After two thousand years, the West had managed to free itself from God. Christian churches attempted to maintain some semblance of being free for God, but after the 2020 global totalitarian coup, most revealed themselves to firmly on the side against freedom for God. Western man had been effectively despiritualized.
On the surface, it would appear that the freedom from God side – replete with its humanism, democracy, toleration, fraternity, materialism, and all the rest of it – has won a decisive victory, as evidenced by some traditional/conservative factions of the ever-shrinking freedom for God side that continues to rage against liberalism, etc.,
This is true to some degree. The freedom from God side has indeed won a decisive victory, but this decisive victory is also marks a devastating defeat for all the “natural human” principles upon which freedom from God was built.
Now that Western man has been decisively despiritualized, the freedom from God forces have set their sights squarely on the next task – systematic dehumanization.
This systematic dehumanization involves directly violating all the human rights and freedoms that were once touted as inviolable to maintain the dignity of natural man.
Personal autonomy? Gone. Liberalism, democracy, humanism, progress? All finished. Human rights? The “natural” ones have been axed. Only heinous and perverted faux rights promoted and defended. Religious freedom? You’re kidding, right? Freedom of movement? Just plain "freedom". Whatever. The list is long and sad.
Freedom from God has been toppled by Slavery to the System.
Freedom from God involved the despiritualization of the West, which was a form of dehumanization.
Slavery to the System involves the total dehumanization of the West -- the stripping of all supposed "natural" human rights, values, and freedoms.
Freedom for God – the understanding that the spiritual aspect of man must be regarded as primary for man to be considered fully human – is the only “real” freedom left.
But where does this freedom for God reside? What will it hope to do?
It certainly does not reside in the external forms of freedom for God because these external forms – once utterly inseparable from the very fabric of Western civilization and the Western spirit – have all willingly and actively joined the System, which means they are all willingly and actively pursuing the System objective of total dehumanization.
So where does freedom for God exist now? For what will it aim?
Well, it will have to aim for God, and it will have to do so from freedom -- freedom that does not depend on anything external whatsoever.
It will have to emerge from the recognition that the goal of freedom for God is freedom with God.
But this entails an entirely different way of thinking about freedom -- not as something granted to us from God, but as something we share and have always shared with God.
February 16, 2022
Another Possible Way of Defining Primary Thinking
Truth has two meanings: there is truth as knowledge of reality, and truth as reality itself.
- Nikolai Berdyaev
I think this punchy line from Berdyaev's The Beginning and End may provide a concise distinction between secondary-level thinking and primary thinking.
Truth as knowledge of reality - knowledge formed from everything representational and language-based: art, images, news, media, print, our own language-based thoughts etc., which all coalesce to form a "knowledge of reality".
Truth as reality itself - divine thinking; a creative act; direct knowledge of reality that does not (and cannot) use or rely upon anything representational.
February 15, 2022
You Cannot Render Unto God . . .
. . . the things that are God's if you believe God to be Caesar.
February 12, 2022
A Simpler, Deeper, Fuller Understanding of Christianity is Long Overdue
Theology is the attempt to define how God should be conceptualized and understood. It provides a framework for how we can think about, understand, and relate to God, Creation, ourselves, and other beings. It aims to determine God's character, nature, powers, limitations, and actions. Theology also endeavors to describe God's relationship to humanity, and it develops constructs to explain the boundaries of this relationship.
Above all else, theology strives to do all of this coherently – that is, in a way that makes sense. This means that every axiom, premise, argument, proposition, postulation, etc., within a theological framework must be logical, rational, cogent, methodical, consistent, and well organized, which entails that theology must be systematic. Every “piece” within a theological system must unfailingly cohere with every other “piece” within the system. This coherence is the glue that holds theology together. If any part of a theological system fails to cohere with the whole, the glue weakens and the system becomes shaky.
Thus, most of what passes for theological inquiry and debate amounts to little more than system defense. Those who have assumed the soundness and coherence of a certain system of thought about God and Creation are predominately interested in and dedicated to defending the soundness and coherence of the theological system to which they are committed.
Although they claim to be open to ideas that challenge the soundness and intelligibility of their theological model, they actually are reluctant to engage in these ideas beyond the established definitions of their own framework for the simple reason that such engagement might undermine the coherence of the theological system in which they have invested their belief.
Case in point – traditional, classical, orthodox theology teaches that God can create free agents from nothing. It then goes on to construct a coherent system of thought based on that assumption. This is all fine and well, but there is one major problem. The assumption that God can create free agents is just that – an assumption. Nevertheless, it can be assumed to be the case, which has immediate and profound effects on how reality – God, Creation, man, freedom, and all the rest of it -- are perceived and understood.
Yet what if God cannot create free agents from nothing? What then? Well, traditional, classical, orthodox theology simply insists that this would be impossible and illogical. But how exactly is it impossible and illogical? Traditional, classical, theology is more than willing to explain why, but only within the coherence of its own theological framework. It will not address the premise beyond that because to do so would be to challenge the intelligibility and logic of the system of thought.
This approach is easy to see in action. Ask Christians who are committed to classical, orthodox theology about the possibility that God might not be able to create free agents from nothing, and you are bound to get an answer that such a thing is impossible because if it were it would mean the end of God and Creation. Everything would collapse into chaos. Christianity itself would be rendered meaningless. Either that or you will be informed that such thinking is not Christianity but some heresy or error; heresy and error that would destroy the entire story of the New Testament.
The same sort of reaction appears with the idea of uncreated freedom. Grant classical theology its creatio ex nihilio but suggest that freedom precedes being, that it is primordial, that is something that does not come from God, something that God cannot control, and you will be told that such a thing is not rational hence impossible without ever being informed why freedom must be understood as rational. The claim that Christianity would become meaningless and impossible once again resurfaces and we are back to the only “acceptable” view of objective reality enshrined in traditional, classical, and orthodox theology.
Despite the vehement rejections and callous dismissals on the part of those who adhere to traditional theology, coherent ways of thinking about and understanding God, Creation, others, and ourselves can and do arise from the two “alternative” assumptions I have included above.
Yet traditional, mainstream theology refuses to engage seriously with either because they view both as anti-Christian. This refusal to engage does not stem from the desire to defend objective truth. Nor does it come from any love of objective truth.
On the contrary, it originates from fear. Not from the fear that classical, traditional, orthodox theology may be all wrong, but from the fear that mainstream theology may not be all “right”. Thus, the insistence that classical theology is “all right” has more to do with maintaining the coherence of a theological model than it does with any honest and earnest reconsideration of metaphysical reality.
Those committed to classical theology view theological challenges as assaults against the very essence of Christianity when in reality all that is being challenged are "pieces" of their theological framework.
Yet, these challenges are not meant to be destructive. They are not meant to destroy classical theology, but transform it and, dare I say it, redeem it.
The end goal is a simpler, deeper, fuller understanding of Christianity, which classical theology preemptively writes off as impossible.
Yet the fact remains, a simpler, deeper, and fuller understanding of Christianity – and of the big “problems” of freedom, agency, and evil -- is beyond necessary, it is sorely overdue.
If a simpler, deeper, and fuller understanding of Christianity is not considered or “permitted”, Christianity will indeed be rendered meaningless.
In many ways it already has been rendered meaningless. All you have to do is take a look around.
Above all else, theology strives to do all of this coherently – that is, in a way that makes sense. This means that every axiom, premise, argument, proposition, postulation, etc., within a theological framework must be logical, rational, cogent, methodical, consistent, and well organized, which entails that theology must be systematic. Every “piece” within a theological system must unfailingly cohere with every other “piece” within the system. This coherence is the glue that holds theology together. If any part of a theological system fails to cohere with the whole, the glue weakens and the system becomes shaky.
Thus, most of what passes for theological inquiry and debate amounts to little more than system defense. Those who have assumed the soundness and coherence of a certain system of thought about God and Creation are predominately interested in and dedicated to defending the soundness and coherence of the theological system to which they are committed.
Although they claim to be open to ideas that challenge the soundness and intelligibility of their theological model, they actually are reluctant to engage in these ideas beyond the established definitions of their own framework for the simple reason that such engagement might undermine the coherence of the theological system in which they have invested their belief.
Case in point – traditional, classical, orthodox theology teaches that God can create free agents from nothing. It then goes on to construct a coherent system of thought based on that assumption. This is all fine and well, but there is one major problem. The assumption that God can create free agents is just that – an assumption. Nevertheless, it can be assumed to be the case, which has immediate and profound effects on how reality – God, Creation, man, freedom, and all the rest of it -- are perceived and understood.
Yet what if God cannot create free agents from nothing? What then? Well, traditional, classical, orthodox theology simply insists that this would be impossible and illogical. But how exactly is it impossible and illogical? Traditional, classical, theology is more than willing to explain why, but only within the coherence of its own theological framework. It will not address the premise beyond that because to do so would be to challenge the intelligibility and logic of the system of thought.
This approach is easy to see in action. Ask Christians who are committed to classical, orthodox theology about the possibility that God might not be able to create free agents from nothing, and you are bound to get an answer that such a thing is impossible because if it were it would mean the end of God and Creation. Everything would collapse into chaos. Christianity itself would be rendered meaningless. Either that or you will be informed that such thinking is not Christianity but some heresy or error; heresy and error that would destroy the entire story of the New Testament.
The same sort of reaction appears with the idea of uncreated freedom. Grant classical theology its creatio ex nihilio but suggest that freedom precedes being, that it is primordial, that is something that does not come from God, something that God cannot control, and you will be told that such a thing is not rational hence impossible without ever being informed why freedom must be understood as rational. The claim that Christianity would become meaningless and impossible once again resurfaces and we are back to the only “acceptable” view of objective reality enshrined in traditional, classical, and orthodox theology.
Despite the vehement rejections and callous dismissals on the part of those who adhere to traditional theology, coherent ways of thinking about and understanding God, Creation, others, and ourselves can and do arise from the two “alternative” assumptions I have included above.
Yet traditional, mainstream theology refuses to engage seriously with either because they view both as anti-Christian. This refusal to engage does not stem from the desire to defend objective truth. Nor does it come from any love of objective truth.
On the contrary, it originates from fear. Not from the fear that classical, traditional, orthodox theology may be all wrong, but from the fear that mainstream theology may not be all “right”. Thus, the insistence that classical theology is “all right” has more to do with maintaining the coherence of a theological model than it does with any honest and earnest reconsideration of metaphysical reality.
Those committed to classical theology view theological challenges as assaults against the very essence of Christianity when in reality all that is being challenged are "pieces" of their theological framework.
Yet, these challenges are not meant to be destructive. They are not meant to destroy classical theology, but transform it and, dare I say it, redeem it.
The end goal is a simpler, deeper, fuller understanding of Christianity, which classical theology preemptively writes off as impossible.
Yet the fact remains, a simpler, deeper, and fuller understanding of Christianity – and of the big “problems” of freedom, agency, and evil -- is beyond necessary, it is sorely overdue.
If a simpler, deeper, and fuller understanding of Christianity is not considered or “permitted”, Christianity will indeed be rendered meaningless.
In many ways it already has been rendered meaningless. All you have to do is take a look around.
What Is the Essence - the "What It Is" - of Christianity?
What is the essence of Christianity? What is its "what it is"? More to the point, what should it be?
By essence I am not referring to doctrines or denominations or theology, but more to the "is-ness" of Christianity . What is its indispensable quality -- the quality that should be "essential" to all Christian doctrines, denominations, and theology but can also exist beyond any Christian doctrine, denomination, or theology?
Well, I think the "what it is" of Christianity is about relationships between beings, especially between the divine and the human, which serves common purpose; a relationship in which the divine and human "depend" on each other.
Classical, traditional, orthodox theology also refers to relationships between the divine and the human, but the "what it is" of classical, traditional, orthodox theology emphasizes a one-sided contingent relationship - man depends on God and needs God for everything, while God does not depend on or need man for anything.
Why?
Because God is an entirely different category of being (he is a being and the source of all beings) that does not need or depend on anything or anyone in order to be or to become (but God has no need to become anything because he already is everything and anything that can be).
This immediately raises questions about why this Omnigod – who has no need of anything and who is perfectly fulfilled as an independent being – would bother with Creation in the first place.
Classical theology always pounds the table about logic, but then goes on to explain Creation as a gratuitous act of love, which is fascinating when you consider that gratuitous means both "free" and "superfluous." Thus, God created of his own free will, but Creation itself is not necessary to God and God would be perfectly content without it.
Having outlined all of that, classical theology then goes on to insist that man still matters (why would he?) and that God is still "relational" (why would He bother)?
So, why does man matter? Well, because God decided man matters, that's why (no real "logical" explanation provided other than the notion that man should submissively worship God and thank God for everything and serve him even though God doesn’t depend on this worship, gratitude, or service).
Why does God want to establish relationships with us when he doesn't really need to? Well, because he loves us, even though he doesn't really need to love us because we are in an entirely different category of being and can never understand him. On top of that, it doesn't really matter if we love him or not because he doesn't depend on that love.
In fact, the only downside to not loving God is you end up spiritually destroying yourself -- but this spiritual destruction does not affect God in any way because he is perfectly and absolutely self-sufficient and not dependent on anything.
In my mind, this is not the essence – the what it is – of Christianity -- or at the very least, it shouldn't be.
The essence of Christianity - "the what it is" (I dislike these philosophical terms, but don't know how else to put it) should be relational - relationships between beings.
Most importantly, the relationship between the human and the divine – a relationship in which man needs God, but God also needs man.
The basis of this relationship is love. Not love as a virtue or love as an emotion, but love as a metaphysical reality.
The kind of love that is only possible between beings who see themselves in each other, who need each other, recognize a shared purpose, and freely commit to actively working toward a common goal – a common goal that elevates both man and God through the expansion of freedom and love.
Note: This post was inspired by a comment I left on Bruce Charlton's Notions.
Note added: What I have presented above is obviously a gross simplification of classical, traditional, orthodox theology, but the simplification serves a purpose. This purpose is not to label classical theology as all wrong, but rather to point out where classical theology can be deepened and expanded. Classic theology's glorification of God frequently comes at the price of debasing man. I believe any debasement of man is also a debasement of God. If it weren't, the demonic forces would not work so hard to debase man at every turn.
By essence I am not referring to doctrines or denominations or theology, but more to the "is-ness" of Christianity . What is its indispensable quality -- the quality that should be "essential" to all Christian doctrines, denominations, and theology but can also exist beyond any Christian doctrine, denomination, or theology?
Well, I think the "what it is" of Christianity is about relationships between beings, especially between the divine and the human, which serves common purpose; a relationship in which the divine and human "depend" on each other.
Classical, traditional, orthodox theology also refers to relationships between the divine and the human, but the "what it is" of classical, traditional, orthodox theology emphasizes a one-sided contingent relationship - man depends on God and needs God for everything, while God does not depend on or need man for anything.
Why?
Because God is an entirely different category of being (he is a being and the source of all beings) that does not need or depend on anything or anyone in order to be or to become (but God has no need to become anything because he already is everything and anything that can be).
This immediately raises questions about why this Omnigod – who has no need of anything and who is perfectly fulfilled as an independent being – would bother with Creation in the first place.
Classical theology always pounds the table about logic, but then goes on to explain Creation as a gratuitous act of love, which is fascinating when you consider that gratuitous means both "free" and "superfluous." Thus, God created of his own free will, but Creation itself is not necessary to God and God would be perfectly content without it.
Having outlined all of that, classical theology then goes on to insist that man still matters (why would he?) and that God is still "relational" (why would He bother)?
So, why does man matter? Well, because God decided man matters, that's why (no real "logical" explanation provided other than the notion that man should submissively worship God and thank God for everything and serve him even though God doesn’t depend on this worship, gratitude, or service).
Why does God want to establish relationships with us when he doesn't really need to? Well, because he loves us, even though he doesn't really need to love us because we are in an entirely different category of being and can never understand him. On top of that, it doesn't really matter if we love him or not because he doesn't depend on that love.
In fact, the only downside to not loving God is you end up spiritually destroying yourself -- but this spiritual destruction does not affect God in any way because he is perfectly and absolutely self-sufficient and not dependent on anything.
In my mind, this is not the essence – the what it is – of Christianity -- or at the very least, it shouldn't be.
The essence of Christianity - "the what it is" (I dislike these philosophical terms, but don't know how else to put it) should be relational - relationships between beings.
Most importantly, the relationship between the human and the divine – a relationship in which man needs God, but God also needs man.
The basis of this relationship is love. Not love as a virtue or love as an emotion, but love as a metaphysical reality.
The kind of love that is only possible between beings who see themselves in each other, who need each other, recognize a shared purpose, and freely commit to actively working toward a common goal – a common goal that elevates both man and God through the expansion of freedom and love.
Note: This post was inspired by a comment I left on Bruce Charlton's Notions.
Note added: What I have presented above is obviously a gross simplification of classical, traditional, orthodox theology, but the simplification serves a purpose. This purpose is not to label classical theology as all wrong, but rather to point out where classical theology can be deepened and expanded. Classic theology's glorification of God frequently comes at the price of debasing man. I believe any debasement of man is also a debasement of God. If it weren't, the demonic forces would not work so hard to debase man at every turn.
