Philosophical Theology Inter Religious

8/3/2019 Philosophical Theology Inter Religious

1/23

A Philosophical Theology for Interreligious Dialogue

by John N Veronica on Friday, 03 June 2011 at 22:22

Overview of a Pneumatological Philosophical Theology

by John Sobert Sylvest 2011

the Spirit woos creation forth

makes this way south & that way north

invites each blade of grass to green!

horizons, boundaries, limits, origins

perimeters, parameters, centers, margins

we're given freedom in between!

thus truth & beauty & goodness grow

thus lizards leap & roosters crow

and dawns break with each new day!

good news is ours to be believed

love freely given if received

the Spirit in our heart will stay!

WHERE FAITH IS CONCERNED - there is something elegant in

Kung's rendering of faith as a justified fundamental trust in

uncertain reality. What needs heavy nuance is the concept

"justified" and just how broadly or narrowly it might be

variously conceived by different folks. I will defend a broad

conception that includes both epistemic and prudential

criteria but also relational norms. We must go beyond

conventional rationality but we mustn't go without it; we must

be transrational but not arational (re: our ultimate concerns

- cf Tillich).

Where one begins on the faith journey vis a vis belonging,

desiring, behaving & believing or community, cult(ivation),

code & creed (and I believe we can begin in media res - in the

middle or anywhere) and to what degree one aspect is

emphasized or de-emphasized, may not only be influenced by

religious & cultural differences but may quite often depend on

developmental and temperamental differences (such as

ordinarily lead to different spiritualities within the same

faith). And these aspects are not either-or dichotomies but

1


2/23

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 saveus?

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 ever-

increasing 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 (Creator-

creature-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 (Creator-

creature-Creator Spirit as the Many; unitive love)?

Sorting Truth Claims

2


3/23

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 inductiveinferences 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 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

3


4/23

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 andpractical 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.

THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

4


5/23

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 whileemphasizing 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 worlds 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 pneumatologicalarchitectonic (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 realitys

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


6/23

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 polerepresents 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 lifes raw

materials are ordered toward a consumer, a human being, who isa 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


7/23

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,

humankinds 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.

Distinctions & Neologisms

pansemioentheism

pneumatological consensus (the secular as)

nomological vs axiological truth claims

prudential vs relational norms

unitary vs unitive

7


8/23

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


9/23

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


10/23

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


11/23

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


12/23

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


13/23

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 ourbehaviors 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


14/23

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 ourunitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity think of

Lonergans 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 humankinds

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 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 Gods shrinking to make room

for reality and my own theology of nature then sees emergent

14


15/23

reality participating in various degrees of semiotic freedom

in an ontological-like hierarchy (crowned by the imago Dei).

So, I dont embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontology

of proodos, mone and epistrophe as a description ofmetaphysical 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 Gods 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


16/23

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


17/23

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


18/23

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 sacramentallyand 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


19/23

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 relationality-

responsibility.

This methodological shift implicitly invites &

19


20/23

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


21/23


22/23

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


23/23

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

Philosophical Theology Inter Religious

Documents

Transcript of Philosophical Theology Inter Religious