SlideShare a Scribd company logo
A Concise Overview of a Pneumatological Philosophical Theology

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 byproducts 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.

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
over-involvement (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

                                           1
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).

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 (Spirit-inspired).

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), non-negotiable (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 value-realizers 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.

Sorting Truth Claims
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 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

                                           2
propositional claims and nonpropositional posits.

As one moves within and across various communities of value-realizers,
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 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
meaning-giving, inviting what I like to call an existential-disjunctive: "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.

Distinctions & Neologisms

pansemioentheism

pneumatological consensus (the secular as)

                                           3
nomological vs axiological truth claims
prudential vs relational norms
unitary vs unitive

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
intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards
end-product vs by-product

axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)
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 &

                                          4
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.

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 merely moral 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.

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.


                                           5
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 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.

A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes of
formative spirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspects

                                            6
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 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 in-principle (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 anddance. 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

                                           7
panentheism is then saying much more about the value-realizations 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 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.

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

                                           8
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
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

                                           9
ultimate concerns. The norms of Christian love foster
our realization of solidarity with all of reality.

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
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

                                          10
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 relationality-responsibility.

This methodological shift implicitly invites &
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
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

                                          11
"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
initiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the problem, I'm afraid.

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!




                                           12

More Related Content

What's hot

Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)
Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)
Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)
Kyle Guzik
 
Statistics in Art Education
Statistics in Art EducationStatistics in Art Education
Statistics in Art Education
Kyle Guzik
 
Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Mysticism
Psychological and Sociological Aspects of MysticismPsychological and Sociological Aspects of Mysticism
Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Mysticism
paulussilas
 
Mysticism and Social Transformaion
Mysticism and Social TransformaionMysticism and Social Transformaion
Mysticism and Social Transformaion
ruffing
 
Intentional nonduality
Intentional nondualityIntentional nonduality
Intentional nonduality
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogueA philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
johnboy_philothea_net
 
2009 o cuidado_-_watson
2009 o cuidado_-_watson2009 o cuidado_-_watson
2009 o cuidado_-_watson
edipovlaso
 
Psychoanalysis and Management
Psychoanalysis and ManagementPsychoanalysis and Management
Psychoanalysis and Management
Shiva Kumar Srinivasan
 
PERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEY
PERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEYPERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEY
PERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEY
Murray Hunter
 
Philosophy of Emotions
Philosophy of EmotionsPhilosophy of Emotions
Philosophy of Emotions
Nicolae Sfetcu
 
Communication research
Communication researchCommunication research
Communication research
Shuayb Dawood
 
Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016
Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016
Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016
Kyle Guzik
 

What's hot (12)

Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)
Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)
Guzik edus 703 c aecr final (2)
 
Statistics in Art Education
Statistics in Art EducationStatistics in Art Education
Statistics in Art Education
 
Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Mysticism
Psychological and Sociological Aspects of MysticismPsychological and Sociological Aspects of Mysticism
Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Mysticism
 
Mysticism and Social Transformaion
Mysticism and Social TransformaionMysticism and Social Transformaion
Mysticism and Social Transformaion
 
Intentional nonduality
Intentional nondualityIntentional nonduality
Intentional nonduality
 
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogueA philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
 
2009 o cuidado_-_watson
2009 o cuidado_-_watson2009 o cuidado_-_watson
2009 o cuidado_-_watson
 
Psychoanalysis and Management
Psychoanalysis and ManagementPsychoanalysis and Management
Psychoanalysis and Management
 
PERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEY
PERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEYPERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEY
PERPETUAL SELF CONFLICT: SELF AWARENESS AS A KEY
 
Philosophy of Emotions
Philosophy of EmotionsPhilosophy of Emotions
Philosophy of Emotions
 
Communication research
Communication researchCommunication research
Communication research
 
Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016
Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016
Kyle Guzik revised manifesto 1242016
 

Viewers also liked

Zen Christian
Zen ChristianZen Christian
Zen Christian
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Nondual christianity
Nondual christianityNondual christianity
Nondual christianity
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Pansemioentheism
PansemioentheismPansemioentheism
Pansemioentheism
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Political tensions
Political tensionsPolitical tensions
Political tensions
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Coercion freedom
Coercion freedomCoercion freedom
Coercion freedom
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Religion in the 1st amendment by sylvest
Religion in the 1st amendment by sylvestReligion in the 1st amendment by sylvest
Religion in the 1st amendment by sylvest
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus
Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom JesusCynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus
Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Norms4intervention
Norms4interventionNorms4intervention
Norms4intervention
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Translation rohr's blog
Translation rohr's blogTranslation rohr's blog
Translation rohr's blog
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Nondual christianity huh
Nondual christianity huhNondual christianity huh
Nondual christianity huh
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A practical universalism
A practical universalismA practical universalism
A practical universalism
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Dear dr krauthammer re gospel of obama
Dear dr krauthammer re gospel of obamaDear dr krauthammer re gospel of obama
Dear dr krauthammer re gospel of obama
johnboy_philothea_net
 
dual vs nondual consciouness
dual vs nondual consciounessdual vs nondual consciouness
dual vs nondual consciouness
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Nondual christianity
Nondual christianityNondual christianity
Nondual christianity
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Johnboy musings part2
Johnboy musings part2Johnboy musings part2
Johnboy musings part2
johnboy_philothea_net
 

Viewers also liked (16)

Zen Christian
Zen ChristianZen Christian
Zen Christian
 
Nondual christianity
Nondual christianityNondual christianity
Nondual christianity
 
Pansemioentheism
PansemioentheismPansemioentheism
Pansemioentheism
 
Political tensions
Political tensionsPolitical tensions
Political tensions
 
Coercion freedom
Coercion freedomCoercion freedom
Coercion freedom
 
Religion in the 1st amendment by sylvest
Religion in the 1st amendment by sylvestReligion in the 1st amendment by sylvest
Religion in the 1st amendment by sylvest
 
Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus
Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom JesusCynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus
Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus
 
Norms4intervention
Norms4interventionNorms4intervention
Norms4intervention
 
Translation rohr's blog
Translation rohr's blogTranslation rohr's blog
Translation rohr's blog
 
Nondual christianity huh
Nondual christianity huhNondual christianity huh
Nondual christianity huh
 
A practical universalism
A practical universalismA practical universalism
A practical universalism
 
Dear dr krauthammer re gospel of obama
Dear dr krauthammer re gospel of obamaDear dr krauthammer re gospel of obama
Dear dr krauthammer re gospel of obama
 
dual vs nondual consciouness
dual vs nondual consciounessdual vs nondual consciouness
dual vs nondual consciouness
 
Nondual christianity
Nondual christianityNondual christianity
Nondual christianity
 
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
 
Johnboy musings part2
Johnboy musings part2Johnboy musings part2
Johnboy musings part2
 

Similar to Pneumatological philosophical theology

Pneumatological philosophical theology
Pneumatological philosophical theologyPneumatological philosophical theology
Pneumatological philosophical theology
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
PhilosophicaltheologyinterreligiousPhilosophicaltheologyinterreligious
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
PhilosophicaltheologyinterreligiousPhilosophicaltheologyinterreligious
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvestPneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvestPneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Sorting truth claims and categories
Sorting truth claims and categoriesSorting truth claims and categories
Sorting truth claims and categories
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Intentional nonduality
Intentional nondualityIntentional nonduality
Intentional nonduality
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Nondual christianity
Nondual christianityNondual christianity
Nondual christianity
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogueA philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A Short History And Theory Of Respect
A Short History And Theory Of RespectA Short History And Theory Of Respect
A Short History And Theory Of Respect
Nathan Mathis
 
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 septPolitical philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Zenchristian
ZenchristianZenchristian
Zenchristian
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 septPolitical philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Political philosophy jss
Political philosophy jssPolitical philosophy jss
Political philosophy jss
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonicA cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonic
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonicA cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonic
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Gospel nonviolence
Gospel nonviolenceGospel nonviolence
Gospel nonviolence
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Norms4intervention
Norms4interventionNorms4intervention
Norms4intervention
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Norms4intervention
Norms4interventionNorms4intervention
Norms4intervention
johnboy_philothea_net
 

Similar to Pneumatological philosophical theology (20)

Pneumatological philosophical theology
Pneumatological philosophical theologyPneumatological philosophical theology
Pneumatological philosophical theology
 
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
PhilosophicaltheologyinterreligiousPhilosophicaltheologyinterreligious
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
 
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
PhilosophicaltheologyinterreligiousPhilosophicaltheologyinterreligious
Philosophicaltheologyinterreligious
 
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvestPneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
 
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvestPneumatological consensus by sylvest
Pneumatological consensus by sylvest
 
Sorting truth claims and categories
Sorting truth claims and categoriesSorting truth claims and categories
Sorting truth claims and categories
 
Intentional nonduality
Intentional nondualityIntentional nonduality
Intentional nonduality
 
Nondual christianity
Nondual christianityNondual christianity
Nondual christianity
 
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
Nondual christianity 2011 dec 18
 
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogueA philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
A philosophical theology for inter faith dialogue
 
A Short History And Theory Of Respect
A Short History And Theory Of RespectA Short History And Theory Of Respect
A Short History And Theory Of Respect
 
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 septPolitical philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
 
Zenchristian
ZenchristianZenchristian
Zenchristian
 
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 septPolitical philosophy jss 2011 sept
Political philosophy jss 2011 sept
 
Political philosophy jss
Political philosophy jssPolitical philosophy jss
Political philosophy jss
 
A cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonicA cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonic
 
A cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonicA cajun-theological-architectonic
A cajun-theological-architectonic
 
Gospel nonviolence
Gospel nonviolenceGospel nonviolence
Gospel nonviolence
 
Norms4intervention
Norms4interventionNorms4intervention
Norms4intervention
 
Norms4intervention
Norms4interventionNorms4intervention
Norms4intervention
 

More from johnboy_philothea_net

Moral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathy
Moral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathyMoral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathy
Moral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathy
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Emerging christianity interfaith account of orthodoxic spi
Emerging christianity   interfaith account of orthodoxic spiEmerging christianity   interfaith account of orthodoxic spi
Emerging christianity interfaith account of orthodoxic spi
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Eucharistic model
Eucharistic modelEucharistic model
Eucharistic model
johnboy_philothea_net
 
The missing divine attribute omnipathy
The missing divine attribute   omnipathyThe missing divine attribute   omnipathy
The missing divine attribute omnipathy
johnboy_philothea_net
 
In all religions we are invited to dig deeper
In all religions we are invited to dig deeperIn all religions we are invited to dig deeper
In all religions we are invited to dig deeper
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxy
A soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxyA soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxy
A soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxy
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Deconstructing deconstructionism
Deconstructing deconstructionismDeconstructing deconstructionism
Deconstructing deconstructionism
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Faith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionism
Faith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionismFaith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionism
Faith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionism
johnboy_philothea_net
 
In defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulness
In defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulnessIn defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulness
In defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulness
johnboy_philothea_net
 
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics   not so fastThe role of change in metaphysics   not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics not so fastjohnboy_philothea_net
 
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics   not so fastThe role of change in metaphysics   not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as loverOrthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as loverOrthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as loverjohnboy_philothea_net
 
To john caputo yes, but
To john caputo   yes, butTo john caputo   yes, but
To john caputo yes, but
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Ontologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theological
Ontologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theologicalOntologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theological
Ontologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theological
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Deconstruct this!
Deconstruct this!Deconstruct this!
Deconstruct this!
johnboy_philothea_net
 
The (semiotic) failure of logocentrism
The (semiotic) failure of logocentrismThe (semiotic) failure of logocentrism
The (semiotic) failure of logocentrism
johnboy_philothea_net
 
A look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage point
A look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage pointA look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage point
A look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage point
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Dorothy day and gospel norms
Dorothy day and gospel normsDorothy day and gospel norms
Dorothy day and gospel norms
johnboy_philothea_net
 
Interfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchange
Interfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchangeInterfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchange
Interfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchange
johnboy_philothea_net
 

More from johnboy_philothea_net (20)

Moral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathy
Moral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathyMoral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathy
Moral justification of our tragic reality via omnipathy
 
Emerging christianity interfaith account of orthodoxic spi
Emerging christianity   interfaith account of orthodoxic spiEmerging christianity   interfaith account of orthodoxic spi
Emerging christianity interfaith account of orthodoxic spi
 
Eucharistic model
Eucharistic modelEucharistic model
Eucharistic model
 
The missing divine attribute omnipathy
The missing divine attribute   omnipathyThe missing divine attribute   omnipathy
The missing divine attribute omnipathy
 
In all religions we are invited to dig deeper
In all religions we are invited to dig deeperIn all religions we are invited to dig deeper
In all religions we are invited to dig deeper
 
A soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxy
A soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxyA soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxy
A soteriological orthodoxy and sophiological polydoxy
 
Deconstructing deconstructionism
Deconstructing deconstructionismDeconstructing deconstructionism
Deconstructing deconstructionism
 
Faith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionism
Faith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionismFaith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionism
Faith between a naive realism and radical deconstructionism
 
In defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulness
In defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulnessIn defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulness
In defense of metaphysics and its meaningfulness
 
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics   not so fastThe role of change in metaphysics   not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
 
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics   not so fastThe role of change in metaphysics   not so fast
The role of change in metaphysics not so fast
 
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as loverOrthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
 
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as loverOrthodoxy weds polydoxy   god as lover
Orthodoxy weds polydoxy god as lover
 
To john caputo yes, but
To john caputo   yes, butTo john caputo   yes, but
To john caputo yes, but
 
Ontologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theological
Ontologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theologicalOntologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theological
Ontologizing schmontologizing, philosophical or theological
 
Deconstruct this!
Deconstruct this!Deconstruct this!
Deconstruct this!
 
The (semiotic) failure of logocentrism
The (semiotic) failure of logocentrismThe (semiotic) failure of logocentrism
The (semiotic) failure of logocentrism
 
A look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage point
A look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage pointA look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage point
A look at panentheism from a semiotic vantage point
 
Dorothy day and gospel norms
Dorothy day and gospel normsDorothy day and gospel norms
Dorothy day and gospel norms
 
Interfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchange
Interfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchangeInterfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchange
Interfaith dialogue as sophiologic gift exchange
 

Recently uploaded

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24
Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24
Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24
deerfootcoc
 
The Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdf
The Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdfThe Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdf
The Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdf
AstroAnuradha
 
Lesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptx
Lesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptxLesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptx
Lesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptx
Celso Napoleon
 
Seminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptx
Seminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptxSeminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptx
Seminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptx
lexielhyn
 
Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)
Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)
Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)
heartfulness
 
Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!
Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!
Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!
Symbolic Whispers
 
Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...
Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...
Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...
Cometan
 
Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)
Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)
Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)
Darul Amal Chishtia
 
Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31
Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31
Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31
JL de Belen
 
English - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdf
English - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdfEnglish - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdf
English - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdf
Filipino Tracts and Literature Society Inc.
 
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu Expert
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu ExpertSanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu Expert
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu Expert
Sanatan Vastu
 
Chandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon God
Chandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon GodChandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon God
Chandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon God
Exotic India
 

Recently uploaded (12)

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24
Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24
Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 6 16 24
 
The Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdf
The Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdfThe Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdf
The Vulnerabilities of Individuals Born Under Swati Nakshatra.pdf
 
Lesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptx
Lesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptxLesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptx
Lesson 12 - The Blessed Hope: The Mark of the Christian.pptx
 
Seminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptx
Seminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptxSeminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptx
Seminar on Music on the Liturgy Parish .pptx
 
Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)
Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)
Heartfulness Magazine - June 2024 (Volume 9, Issue 6)
 
Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!
Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!
Is Lucid Dreaming Dangerous? Risks and Benefits!
 
Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...
Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...
Astronism, Cosmism and Cosmodeism: the space religions espousing the doctrine...
 
Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)
Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)
Monthly Khazina-e-Ruhaniyaat Jun’2024 (Vol.15, Issue 2)
 
Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31
Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31
Trusting God's Providence | Verse: Romans 8: 28-31
 
English - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdf
English - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdfEnglish - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdf
English - The Book of 1st Samuel the Prophet.pdf
 
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu Expert
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu ExpertSanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu Expert
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu Expert
 
Chandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon God
Chandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon GodChandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon God
Chandra Dev: Unveiling the Mystery of the Moon God
 

Pneumatological philosophical theology

  • 1. A Concise Overview of a Pneumatological Philosophical Theology 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 byproducts 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. 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 over-involvement (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 1
  • 2. 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). 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 (Spirit-inspired). 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), non-negotiable (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 value-realizers 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. Sorting Truth Claims 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 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 2
  • 3. propositional claims and nonpropositional posits. As one moves within and across various communities of value-realizers, 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 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 meaning-giving, inviting what I like to call an existential-disjunctive: "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. Distinctions & Neologisms pansemioentheism pneumatological consensus (the secular as) 3
  • 4. nomological vs axiological truth claims prudential vs relational norms unitary vs unitive 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 intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards end-product vs by-product axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles) 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 & 4
  • 5. 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. 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 merely moral 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. 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. 5
  • 6. 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 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. A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes of formative spirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspects 6
  • 7. 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 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 in-principle (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 anddance. 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 7
  • 8. panentheism is then saying much more about the value-realizations 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 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. 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 8
  • 9. 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 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 9
  • 10. ultimate concerns. The norms of Christian love foster our realization of solidarity with all of reality. 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 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 10
  • 11. 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 relationality-responsibility. This methodological shift implicitly invites & 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 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 11
  • 12. "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 initiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the problem, I'm afraid. 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! 12