2. present, rather, in varying degrees.
We do not reason, feel or will our way into believing that the
pasture where the Shepherd leads us is green; that comes to us
as one of reality's givens? Neither do we reason, feel or will
our belief that life's path is safe; that realization, too,
comes only as pure gift? Ignatius prayed:
"Take, Lord,receive, all my liberty, my memory, understanding,
my entire will. GIVE me only Your love and your grace" ...
So, faith, would be neither intellectual nor emotional nor
volitional in origin, but holistically (existentially or with
one's entire being) and integrally (drawing on each human
faculty as would be proper to its role) would respond (insofar
as it is performative) to our changing expectations as they
are dynamically (re)conditioned by reality's GIVENness?
It has the character of an existential-disjunctive, a living
as-if ... as if, despite reality's being awfully ambiguous for
us and, apparently, terribly ambivalent toward us, love will,
somehow and finally, orient, sanctify, empower, heal and save
us?
And all can "expect" that such efficacies will also be
realized proleptically (in anticipation) to various degrees in
their lives? Further, it can be "expected" that a few will
even realize them to a remarkable degree (liberated/unitive
life)? All of reality seemingly participates in everincreasing degrees of autonomy, freedom increasing up an
ontological hierarchy, up a phylogenetic ladder, up a
transformative trajectory (variously conceived across
traditions)? This generates a paradoxical situation whereby,
ironically, it may precisely be that a kenotic surrender of
this very growth in freedom just might free us to embrace the
intra-objective identity of all determinate reality (Creatorcreature-creativity as One;absolute unitary being) without any
overwhelming fear of loss of the values we may have already
realized (and/or expect to realize) through the
intersubjective intimacy we've come to enjoy (Creatorcreature-Creator Spirit as the Many; unitive love)?
Sorting Truth Claims
2
3. Whether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoetic
narrative -
Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its context
within the whole without doing violence to its integrity?
rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenched from its
context in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation?
And the general default stance would be that most truth claims
should have some interreligious, intercultural significance as
human beings are, for the most part, vis a vis the human
condition, similarly situated and, furthermore
Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claims
are not going to be inextricably bound within or to systematic
formulae because they are otherwise ordinarily going to be
related as individual strands of cable that collectively
impart strength and resilience one to the other (via their
intertwining) in a way that is much more informal. And the
distinction in play, here, is that between foundational and
nonfoundational epistemologies, between deductive reasoning
from a priori, apodictic propositions and a form of reasoning
that otherwise cycles through abductive and inductive
inferences in a cumulative case-like approach.
Further, one must consider the distinction between
propositional claims and nonpropositional posits.
As one moves within and across various communities of valuerealizers, one must consider the nature of the concepts being
employed vis a vis to what extent such concepts enjoy
theoretic (negotiated), heuristic (still-in-negotiation),
dogmatic (non-negotiated) or semiotic (non-negotiable) status.
One must further distinguish between articulations of any
given theory of truth (correspondence & congruence) versus a
proposal for a test of truth (coherence, consilience &
consonance) next between nomological
(descriptive/interpretive) & axiological
(normative/evaluative) truth claims and then further
distinguish between prudential (moral/practical) norms and
relational norms (unitary/unitive), the latter which foster
3
4. realizations of absolute unitary being and/or intersubjective
unitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to be sure, but both
from which solidarity and compassion seem to inevitably ensue?
and which have profound existential import?
The relational norms (ceremonial, liturgical, ascetical &
mystical) may, perhaps, be the most interesting when they lead
to phenomenal experiences that do not so much lend themselves
to phenomenological descriptions (much less
Metaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwise
bring about a practitioner's affective attunement with reality
vis a vis how friendly and safe it is notwithstanding all
appearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfect
love driving out all fear)?
These relational norms are discussed here in the context of a
personal God but certainly apply to degrees of intimacy in
human interactions.
There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims that
engages our participatory imaginations more than our
conceptual mapmaking?
This is not to say that empirical, logical, moral and
practical propositions are unimportant, only to realize that
'marital propositions' are far more ' engaging' and meaninggiving, inviting what I like to call an existentialdisjunctive: "I am going to live as if She loves me."
And when so many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ...
perhaps truth will come flying in on the wings of beauty &
goodness? as it is not merely informative but robustly
performative, even transformative?
Our existential responses can be mapped along either the axis
of co-creativity(formative and redemptive poles) or the axis
of codependency (a/pathetic poles)based on their frequency and
amplitude, revealing behavior to be existential or neurotic,
life-giving and relationship-enhancing or their opposite.
THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
4
5. The pneumatological perspective engages an outlook that is
incarnational, liturgical and sacramental. It embraces the
essential Christological and pneumatological approaches of
Anglican, Orthodox, Roman and other catholic traditions while
emphasizing nonhierarchical vehicles in the practice of the
faith (not over against but as a complement to institutional
models of church). It enjoys an increasingly global P2P (peer
to peer) interactivity among the world’s catholics.
It is described using an indefinite article (“a” not “the”)
because normative philosophical and interpretive theological
methods are autonomous.
Furthermore, these methods employ falsifiable hypotheses and
not a priori positions.
A metaphor that mixes both manufacturing and natural processes
may be helpful in understanding this perspective.
References to a phenomenology, ontology or metaphysic may be
reconceived in terms of raw materials. In this pneumatological
architectonic (group of basic categories), these raw materials
are described as different types of relationships
(intraobjective identity, intersubjective intimacy,
intrasubjective integrity and interobjective indeterminacy).
An inventory of these raw materials considers reality’s
givens, its basic furnishings.
What is called an axiology (think values) refers, then, to the
sought-after products. These include end-products (intrinsic
values), by-products (extrinsic values) and waste-products
(disvalues and evil, which invite transformative processes).
The end-products and by-products represent higher and lesser
goods. The category of waste-products invites both theodicy
hypotheses (why is there evil?) and questions of soteriology
(what to do about evil?).
Any discussion of methodology, including epistemology, may be
thought of as processes.
5
6. These represent the means by which we pursue our ends, the
strategies ordered toward our goals. They include our
descriptive sciences, evaluative cultures, normative
philosophies and interpretive religions. They require prudent
risk management, both attenuation and amplification, ordered
toward the augmentation of value-realization. This prudential
judgment employs an axis of co-creativity, where one pole
represents the high frequency-low amplitude approach of our
formative influences (think soft power) and the other – the
low frequency-high amplitude approach of our redemptive
Interventions (think hard power).
The aesthetic teleology (process ordered toward enhanced
beauty) of emergent reality does not forcefully coerce what it
can otherwise gently coax (or at least politely co-opt).
Prudence avoids the competing and insidious axis of
Codependency, where one pole represents the low frequency-low
amplitude approach of an apathetic disposition (such as
depression and isolationism) and the other – the high
frequency-high amplitude interventions of a pathetic overinvolvement (such as codependency and militarism).
The products that result from the processing of life’s raw
materials are ordered toward a consumer, a human being, who is
a radically social animal. In this mixed metaphor, then, any
talk of an anthropology refers to the role of the consumer.
Different human value-realizations of the truth have been
described in various historical narratives that have been
inescapably eschatological (Spirit-oriented).
Beauty has been celebrated in cultural (mostly individualized)
and social (mainly institutionalized) realities that are,
respectively, theological (Spirit-sanctified) and
ecclesiological (Spirit-empowered). Goodness has been advanced
and preserved by economic orders that are essentially
sacramental (Spirit-healed).
All of these value-realizations require a context of freedom
advanced by political realities that are soteriological
(Spirit-saved).
6
7. None of this is to suggest that truth, beauty, goodness and
freedom are optimally (or equally) realized in every
historical, cultural, social, economic and political milieu,
only to recognize that it has been the Spirit,Who has gently
coaxed and, sometimes, more coercively cajoled, reality on a
journey that is unmistakably pneumatological (Spiritinspired).
This is all to suggest that what we call the secular order is
no reality from which the Spirit has been either partially
bracketed or fully abstracted but represents, rather,
humankind’s pneumatological consensus to date, even if such an
accord is somewhat implicit and unconsciously competent and
not otherwise negotiated through explicitly conscious
dialogical processes. Other semiotic (think meaning) realities
are similarly negotiated (our theoretic concepts), nonnegotiable (our semiotic concepts without which meaning,
itself, would not be possible), still-in-negotiation
(heuristic concepts or placeholders) or nonnegotiated
(dogmatic concepts) across the human community of valuerealizers writ large.
Thus we interpret the products of our trialectical axiology,
the raw materials of our triadic phenomenology, the processes
of our trialogical epistemology, the tripartite anthropology
of our consumer and the trinitarian theology of our Producer.
Distinctions & Neologisms
pansemioentheism
pneumatological consensus (the secular as)
nomological vs axiological truth claims
prudential vs relational norms
unitary vs unitive
7
8. descriptive sciences
evaluative cultures
normative philosophies
interpretive religions
theoretic concept
semiotic concept
heuristic concept
dogmatic concept
intraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)
intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)
intrasubjective integrity
interobjective indeterminacy
simple phenomenal experience
vague phenomenological concepts
robust ontological descriptions
risk management, both attenuation & amplification, ordered
toward the augmentation of value-realization
value-realizations as
implicit vs explicit
intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards
end-product vs by-product
axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)
8
9. axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)
theoretical theological capitulation
practical pastoral accommodation
universal ethical norms of justice & ordinary virtue (morality
as end-product)
Christian unitive norms of love & extraordinary virtue
(morality as by-product)
A Pneumatological Consensus?
In a pluralistic country, might we perhaps discern how much,
on the whole, its people cooperate with the Spirit?
Might we observe how well its:
1) culture sanctifies
2) history orients
3) society empowers
4) economy heals &
5) politics save ----------- its people?
Might the secular there manifest, for better or worse, a
"pneumatological consensus" with its implicit theology
(sanctifying), eschatology (orienting), ecclesiology
(empowering), sacramentology (healing) & soteriology (saving)?
Of course, we are talking about proleptic (anticipatory)
realizations of Kingdom values that are yet unfolding toward a
future fullness.
9
10. This would clearly differ from any overly dialectical
perspective that would essentially run counter to a robustly
incarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all of
reality, even while recognizing significant differences in any
degree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures to
cooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor
formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (known
to God alone).
Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realism
that would draw too sharp a distinction between the
eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel
imperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?
Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharply
distinguish between our personal vocations and political
statecraft? For example, coercion there but not here?
Or that would suggest so-called dispensational distinctions?
For example, signs & wonders then but not now, there but not
here)?
And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel's
robustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy with
God and others) and general revelation's merelymoral norms
(how to live in harmony with God, others, creation & self,
pursuing what's good and right, avoiding what's evil and
wrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, an
end-product of the latter, necessary in any case.
10
11. Because of our radical human finitude and sinfulness
(personal, social & institutional), any sanctioned departures
from these unitive norms would represent, then, no theoretical
theological capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather,
practical pastoral accommodations (for example, regarding any
use of coercive violence).
At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any essentially
moral norms, which are otherwise transparent to human reason
without the benefit of special revelation(s) - differentiate
the Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a suitable means
to the ends of justice but its unitive aims clearly exceed
those, even breaking open a new category.
The whole point of my exploration is that we might more
broadly conceive just when and where and in whom we might
encounter the Spirit!
The unitive vs moral norm distinction moreso differentiates
the Old & New Testaments, as I see it. Keep in mind, though,
that 'good people doing good things for good reasons'
characterizes moral norms. Our unitive norms entail a striving
for loving intimacy, relating as lovers. So, what I am saying
is that morality is not what separates the Gospel messages
from other messages b/c anyone can do morality, which is
transparent to human reason without the benefit of special
revelation, which is why we see good people doing good things
for good reasons everywhere. The Good News tells us that we
are loved beyond imagining by a God,Who wants us to relate to
Him as Daddy, or, if one prefers, as Betrothed.
To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguished
from those practices of the East that are ordered toward
gifting one with an experience of absolute unitary being,
which I consider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our
11
12. great causal connectedness, reality's immense solidarity. The
unitive striving gifts us with an intersubjective,
interpersonal intimacy. Both lead to compassion.
The thrust is that the Spirit just might be at work in every history, every culture, every society, every economy
and every political effort, albeit in varying degrees.
And the efficacies of the Spirit are being realized not just
in the past or future but now, not just here and here but
there and there. And that the Spirit's invitation takes us -not without but -- way beyond mere moral & practical concerns
to robustly relational concerns.
What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance toward
reality involves relational values & relationships, evaluative
posits of various types (truth, beauty, goodness,
freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid or
acquire dis/values) and descriptive accounts (what is that?).
To some extent, we can roughly map these endeavors as science
(descriptive-truth), philosophy (normative-goodness) and
culture (evaluative-beauty).
Religion is an interpretive stance that takes us meta- via
creed (truth), cult-ivation (beauty), code (goodness) and
community (relational).
The Spirit (based on Lukan Christology, too) orients,
sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves us and these functions
are manifest in our churches, respectively, via eschatology,
theology, ecclesiology, sacrament and soteriology,
mapping roughly over an otherwise, again respectively, secular
history, culture, society, economy & body politic.
More commonly, we see the terms orthodoxy (truth), orthopathy
(beauty), orthopraxy (goodness) and orthocommunio (community),
as applied to our needs for believing, desiring, behaving and
belonging.
12
13. A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes of
formative spirituality/development, while viewing all of these
aspects as integral, would accord a certain primacy to
belonging, which then forms our desires, which then elicit our
behaviors which will nurture our interpretive stance or
beliefs. And these beliefs engage our participatory
imagination way more than our propositional cognition, being
way more performative than informative, much more about
practical living than theoretical speculation.
This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenant
mindset, which certainly values belonging, desiring, behaving
and believing but seems to accord a primacy to believe this
and behave like that and then you can belong (and what's a
desire?).
What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task.We are
unpacking our densely packed jargonistic prose. There is
nothing magical about jargon but it is an eminently useful
tool of any trade that consists, usually, of a shorthand that
is highly nuanced, hence saving time and space.When it is
used, no problem, but it needs translating when being taken to
a different audience. And that's all that was about. And this
is aside from any discussion of ecclesiology or models of
church, which, again, I don't see as mutually exclusive. I do
see a role for experts in descriptive, normative and
theological sciences but that doesn't drive my pneumatology or
view of the Spirit at work in the world.We do want to
collaboratively pursue the most nearly perfect articulation of
truth in creeds/myths, the most nearly perfect celebrations of
beauty in cult/liturgy, the most nearly perfect preservation
of the good in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoyment
of fellowship in community and this will require our fostering
of Lonergan's conversions: intellectual, affective, moral,
sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimal
value-realization.
In that, there are diverse ministries but one mission.
Pan-semio-entheism
I call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely because
I choose to prescind from any robustly metaphysical
13
14. descriptions (an ontology) to a more vague phenomenological
perspective, which categorizes our experiences of God in
relational terms based on our intuitions, evaluations and
performative responses that ensue in the wake of these
experiences. Those categories include 1) intraobjective
identity – regarding our vague intuitions of an absolute
unitary being 2) intersubjective intimacy – regarding our
unitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity – think of
Lonergan’s conversions & formative spirituality and 4)
interobjective indeterminacy – which hints at the
methodological constraints and putative ontological occulting
that thwart natural theological inquiry, as some claim inprinciple (which is too strong a position to defend
philosophically) and as I acknowledge (instead for all
practical purposes) at least, at this stage of humankind’s
sojourn.
So, a suitably nuanced panentheism is not an ontology or
metaphysic or natural theology but, instead, a theology of
nature, which employs metaphor, analogy, myth, koan, song and
dance. It does not aspire to describe what remains
indescribable, to say more than we can possibly know, does not
attempt to prove too much or to tell untellable stories. The
above categories certainly have ontological implications
(which get analytically frustrated) that might flow from those
distinct phenomenological categories of our God-experience but
they honor, with reverent silence and respectful apophasis,
the mysterium tremendum et fascinans.
Our panentheism is then saying much more about the valuerealizations that grow out of our God-encounters but much less
about causal joints and divine mechanics.
We affirm THAT values are being realized from experiences
without specifying HOW.
It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures,
nowadays, we know better than to use a modal ontology of
possible, actual and necessary but now substitute “probable”
for necessary. Confronted with epistemic indeterminacy and
ontological vagueness in navigating proximate reality, how
much more folly we would engage when attempting to describe
ultimate reality? Still, everywhere in reality, necessity
suggest itself even as, nowhere in reality, have we found it
physically instantiated. Charles Sanders Peirce speaks of our
abduction of the Ens Necessarium and I resonate with that
inference, weak though it may be. I precisely make the same
appeal to the Jewish intuition of God’s shrinking to make room
for reality and my own theology of nature then sees emergent
14
15. reality participating in various degrees of semiotic freedom
in an ontological-like hierarchy (crowned by the imago Dei).
So, I don’t embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontology
of proodos, mone and epistrophe as a description of
metaphysical reality, much less God ad intra or ad extra in a
natural theology. But I do believe it is enormously helpful to
honor and thereby categorize the many human phenomenal
experiences of God that ensue from our subjunctive (as if)
encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in a
theology of nature that is self-aware of its metaphorical,
mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed by suitable
kataphatic, apophatic and relational predication and generally
revealed.
The Trinity and God’s relational nature is specially revealed
as Love, exceeding anything we could otherwise infer
empirically, logically, practically or morally from nature.
At least this is my attempt to grapple with the same issues.
Systematic Theology?
Sometimes, to me, it feels like systematic theology is an
oxymoron, practical theology is a redundancy and natural
theology is a fool's errand. And where natural theology is
concerned, I'm talking about the kind that gets all
metaphysical using somebody's pet root metaphor, be that being
or substance or process or social-relational or flavah du
jour. Our realization of life's values just seems a lot more
informal, a lot messier, if you will, than all of the
otherwise neat formulas that the theo-wonks are fashioning
with the aim of shoehorning creation & Creator into some One
SiZe FiTs AlL Gospel sandals.
15
16. But a theology of nature that begins within the faith and
spontaneously breaks into lyric and psalm and myth and koan
and song and poem with metaphors cascading and collapsing --engenders fascination and mystery, awakens desires and
longings, fosters communal celebrations and forms ecological
sensibilities, reinforcing how everything belongs. In this
belonging our desires are formed such that compassionate
behaviors naturally ensue.What we call our beliefs, then, are
more so interpretations, less so descriptions, what we might
call existential disjunctives that suggest: if we live as if
... then thus and such!
So, we participate imaginatively by celebrating with God,
other, world and self as if we all really belonged to one
another in solidarity and compassionate interactions then
ensue toward others and our environment.
Finally, since all interpretive approaches are inescapably
tautological and all metaphors eventually collapse, one way
science can enhance our understanding of God's word and
creation is by providing more accurate descriptions for our
interpretations such that our metaphors are more robust (last
longer before collapsing - as we mine their meanings) and our
tautologies are more taut (tautologies do not provide new info
but that doesn't mean they are not true or that all are
equally true; there are criteria for how well they "fit"
reality).
The Gospel Brand
16
17. What differentiates the Gospel brand is an interpretation of
reality as both created & friendlier than we could ever
imagine. Authentic friendship, however, transcends the need
for extrinsic rewards (what's in it for me?) and enjoys the
robustly relational intrinsic rewards (truth, beauty,
goodness, freedom, trust, love) that are ends unto themselves,
their own reward, in no need of apology or explanation.
Now, "to transcend" does not mean to "go without" but, rather,
"beyond."
Still, for some, it might invite a re-EMPHASIS?
Another implication is that religion's core mission is to
interpret reality and not to otherwise describe, norm or even
evaluate it, all activities (e.g. science & moral reasoning)
that are already transparent to human reason. This is not
to suggest that it would not have moral implications for, if
we act as if we really believe the Good News, we will then
exceed the demands of justice!
An Existential Disjunctive - to live as if
Christian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretive
stance (Christology/Pneumatology), has normative implications.
Beyond our practical and moral norms with their extrinsic
rewards, it introduces a new category of norms, the unitive,
which are intrinsically rewarding. These unitive norms provide
suitable means for moral ends but their aim transcends our
practical and moral concerns.
As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our
imaginative participation in an intimate relationship with the
Trinity thus orienting our historical perspective
eschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirations
theologically, empowering our societal institutions
ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentally
and saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And what
singular reality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and
saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The norms
of Christian love foster our realization of solidarity with
all of reality.
17
18. As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our
imaginative participation in an intimate relationship with the
Trinity thus orienting our historical perspective
eschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirations
theologically, empowering our societal institutions
ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentally
and saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And what
singular reality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and
saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The norms
of Christian love foster our realization of solidarity with
all of reality.
Communal Discernment
communal discernment - my favorite redundancy, and it applies
in science, philosophy & religion b/c, in my approach, at
least, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology (contra
any notion of, for example, a religious epistemology vs other
types). This is not to say that there is no such phenomenal
experience as "hearing from God" but, even then, the
individual will be processing (chewing & digesting) it through
(self-critical) lenses provided during formation in community
& the fruits of same (or lack thereof) are subject to the
prudential & theological judgments of community (another
source transcendent of one's mere self).We don't want to deny
signs & wonders, which may be proleptic realizations of what
may some day be an eschatological fullness but we want to
resist the tendency to sensationalize them in a way that
devalues the splendor of the ordinary and the stupefaction we
should all be experiencing in every waking (and dreaming)
moment at the ... the ... the ...
Church Polity
18
19. Beyond the difficult to pin down empirical data re: the exact
nature, rates, causes & handling of abuse incidents, in one
denomination vs another (and some fairly good studies are
emerging even as some fairly dubious & facile analyses
persist), there is a related issue in play re: church polity
vis a vis any question re: a grassroots 'people's
reform' of the church.
It may be that, in theory, the sense of the faithful (sensus
fidelium) or "what has been received & practiced by the
faithful" is what guides the Teaching Office (magisterium) but
it seems pretty obvious to me that, in practice, this process
has been seriously flawed.
Apparently, this is less the case with the methodologies
employed in formulating & articulating social teachings even
as it has clearly been the case where church disciplines (e.g.
celibacy, women's ordination), liturgical practices (e.g. open
communion, sacramental reception by divorced & remarried) and
moral doctrines (e.g. contraception, homoerotic behavior) are
concerned. Catholic social teaching has experienced three
rather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic social
teaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shifts
in emphasis from: 1) classicism to historical consciousness 2)
natural law to personalism and 3) legalism to relationalityresponsibility.
This methodological shift implicitly invites &
19
20. fosters the collegial participation of lay experts &
commissions (iow, us anawim - of both genders, even), social &
political scientists, academic theologians and so on in a much
broader & deeper consultative, active-listening process.
The good news, then, is that the seeds of reform are there for
the planting if only the church could cross-pollinate its
seminal social doctrine cultivation and plant and nurture them
in the furrows of its church discipline, liturgical practice &
moral doctrine rows. This will require pulling the weeds of
patriarchalism, hierarchicalism, clericalism, sexism and so on
from those rows as has been done on the others. Or, to change
metaphors, one has reason to hope that the seismic shifts that
have already taken place already, to the edification of the
faithful and the world community writ large, will cause some
tectonic reshuffling as their aftershocks emanate out from
that epicenter.
There are roles to play, then, in ongoing institutional reform
and there are end-arounds, too, via non-institutional vehicles
(not mutually exclusive). In some sense, it seems to me that
the hierarchicalism & clericalism is not just a top-down
oppression but that it reflects where so much of the laity
remains.We don't want to over-identify THE church with either
its institutional form or its clerical leadership but we
cannot deny that their re-formation and ongoing transformation
would help advance the Kingdom. A significant but
marginalized minority continues to voice prophetic protest and
live in loyal dissent; others change denominations or employ
non-institutional vehicles.Whatever the case, a denomination
20
21. is but a means and not the end, thank God.
The Role of Government
In an ideal world, there would be no coercion needed at all.
Government is a necessary evil because we are fallible,
flawed, finite. Political statecraft, especially at the
federal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. To
try to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralistic
society, isn't workable and quickly devolves into the
counterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroaches
on personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."
The government, then, is to be about the administration of
justice, leaving the demands of charity to individual
initiatives. Even what have traditionally been called
"entitlement" programs are not really in place to administer
mercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public order
b/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,
society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos and
disorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptly
named "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.
I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their own
needs b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and other
at-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remain
out of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collective
resources of our population are so scarce that maybe even all
of our population's basic needs might not be met by them! The
nuance is that I am saying that the government is in no
position to commandeer those resources that we, thru our
selfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing to
freely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitable
21
22. initiatives.
The Goose would selfishly fly away is the problem, I'm afraid.
If the government were really about administering charity and
mercy, don't you reckon we'd have done such a long time ago?
The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & not
used to incentivize the allocation of private capital. They
can give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd like
per the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hope
they seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &
not income & never both.
In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks for
Big Oil, the incentives should be repealed for all
manufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.
To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenue
enhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter must
come from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.
Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c those
will always exceed our available governmental resources, which
must be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needs
require, then, some tragic triage decisions.
Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,
no eggs!
22
23. See Reasons and Values of the Heart in a Pluralistic World:
Toward a Contemplative Phenomenology for Interreligious
Dialogue, John Sobert Sylvest & Amos Yong, Studies in
Interreligious Dialogue, Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Date: 2010 Pages:
170-193
http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=
2058666&journal_code=SID
23
