banner

A Postmodern Divine

07/13/09

Permalink 05:44:44 am, by dissidens Email , 627 words, 1075 views   English (US)
Categories: Old Main

A Postmodern Divine

John Calvin has been known to get a bit technical at times. So as a counterweight, and to put our own times into some sort of context, I thought we might consider the religious speculations of a seriously disheveled mind.

Committing his doctrine to the internet, the pastor without raiment seeks to offer solace and enlightenment to the modern pilgrim:

...I have many friends who have left the church altogether because they've changed their minds and no longer feel like they could stay and keep their intellectual integrity.

Luckily for us, intellectual integrity is exactly what David Hayward brings to the table. (Or perhaps I should say it is what he brings to the high-chair that someone else pushes up to the table.)

As an introductory summary: "God" does not exist, and this is his choice. "Jesus" is the history of a suffering humanity longing and striving for truth, justice and love. The "Spirit" is the united community of people, the fullest and final incarnation.

So this god does not quite exist, but he exists just enough to choose not to exist. Think of a lighthouse that was never built but which nevertheless blinks in and out of existence on a distant shore.

The second person of the trinity was misnamed at an early age. He is not a person at all, he is the history of a collective longing; not the longing, mind you, the history of a longing. Kind of like a memory of a longing but with footnotes and important dates to memorize.

And the third person of the trinity—also misnamed—is really a community of people doing the longing and making the history of doing the longing. Apparently the second non-person of the trinity proceeds from the third non-person of the trinity, which may seem counterintuitive, but don't worry about it. This is not science, this is theology.

You must bear in mind that this is just a summary; of course there is much more to be unknown about this intermittent god. For instance, we now have a pretty good idea where he is not:

God does not exist. God is above and beyond. Evidence can be mounted and presented, but that's all it is: evidence.

Evidence can be mounted and ignored because, obviously, it is merely evidence of his existence in the above-and-beyond. So god is not, but he can be located in the above-and-beyond, and at one time he was, but he became manifested as something else: the human drama. As to whether this was by choice we are not told. Maybe like Humpty-Dumpty he fell off the above-and-beyond and broke apart into five acts.

So the ultimate and final work of the divine is in the unity and community of all people... a reality that awaits manifestation in our history as we work toward it.

So we see that this non-existent god actually does some work. We don't know to whom the paychecks are made out or if they are ever cashed, but the manifestation of the work of this non-existing god who exists in the above-and-beyond will be realized as we work toward it, as we become the Spirit, who is also not god but who is in the here and now working to manifest a longing for this not-god who chooses to be not-god to become a reality we work toward. And by we I mean the community of all people.

But I know I don't have to explain that to you! It's all pretty basic, first-year seminary stuff.

I could go on to develop this theology a good deal further but, as it happens, I'm busy working on another time-consuming theory wherein I become my own grandpa.

First things first.

Trackback address for this post:

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

1 Comment from: Joshua Allen [Visitor] Email
Not even Iraneus executed takedowns with this much aplomb. The naked theologian's theory sounds suspiciously like Valentius's "First-unthinkable" theory that Iranaeus documented in chapter 11 of "Against the Heresies".

While Iranaeus didn't reference Humpty Dumpty, his takedown of Valentius was still pretty funny.

Iraneus reports Valentius's "v-theory" as being:

"There is before all things a certain First-Beginning, a First-unthinkable, who is both unutterable and unnamable. I call him Oneness. With this Oneness there coexists a power to which I give the name Unity. This Unity and Oneness, being on, without bringing forth [outside themselves] brought forth Beginning of all things, intelligible, ingenerate too, and ivisible. This beginning our language style Monad. With this Monad there coexisted a power consubstantial with it, which I call Unit. These Powers -- Oneness, Unity, Monad, Unit -- brought forth the rest of the emissions of the Aeons."


And Iranaeus's sarcastic paraphrase of the nonsensical theory is:

"There is a certain royal First-Beginning, First-unthinkable, First-non-substantial Power, First-ever-forward-rolling. However, with this one coesists a Power, which I call a Gourd; with this Gourd there coexists a Power, to which I give the name Utter-Emptiness. Now this Gourd and Utter-Emptiness, since they are one, brought forth a fruit, without bringing in forth -- a fruit everywhere visible, edible, and delicious, which in our language we call a Cucumber. With this Cucumber there coexists a consubstantial Power, to which I give the name Pumpkin. These Powers -- Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, Cucumber, and Pumpkin -- begot the rest of the multitude of delerious Pumpkins of Valentinus."


Reading this aloud in a very grave voice never fails to elicit peals of laughter in my household. Next time someone argues that blog-based rebukes of nonsense are somehow "unscriptural", or must be done with sufficient seriousness, groveling and self-flagellation, perhaps we can point them to Iranaeus.
PermalinkPermalink 07/13/09 @ 14:28

Reply to comment 6303 by Joshua Allen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Thanks for noticing.

I’m no Irenaeus, but I do approve the attitude of the Fathers toward heresy. These days fundagelicals like to play Heresy Badminton with infidels. Those who demand a more placid defense of truth show just how widely unread they are.

By the way, the Z-Theorist today said this doctrine gives him “a sense of reality” and serves as a tranquilizer for him.

No surprises there, eh?

PermalinkPermalink 07/13/09 @ 20:29

Reply to comment 6304 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, a>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Remonstrans

March 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31    

Archives

Search

Categories

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 29

powered by
b2evolution