pneumatological consensus by sylvest

14
Subject: RE: pneumatological philosophical theology The most salient point that I have to contribute is that what most people experience as the secular order represents --- not a lack of concern for the holy or religious, which is how secular has often been narrowly conceived, but --- the pneumatological consensus of any given people at any given place or time. Here we apply the more broadly conceived conceptions of the secular, which are not taken in any over against sense vis a vis the holy, in other words, as a synonym for profane. Thus we look to these dictionary definitions, from saecularis; relating to the temporal; not overtly religious; not ecclesiastical; having no particular religious affinities; not specifically relating to a religious body; not within the control of the Church. Sociological realities reveal, for example, as per Amos Yong's typology of Spirit --- http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/9140/Default.aspx --- that, however ambiguous, the concept of spirit has always been and remains ubiquitous. While there may be a few, indeed, who explicitly reject either the holy or our more robust constructions of spirit, they do not represent the norm and, worldwide and throughout history, they are mere anomalies. So our Lukan Christology/pneumatology not only breaks open the categories of interreligious dialogue but suggests that the historical, cultural, social, economic and political orders are - respectively, implicitly & undeniably - also eschatological, theological, ecclesiological, sacramental and soteriological. In other words, the secular represents what can only be a pneumatological consensus, as there can be no denying that people who have belonged, desired, behaved and believed together as formed in their diverse traditions will inevitably and inescapably bring such formation to bear in all ways that they live, move and have their being in the world albeit with varying degrees of conscious awareness and competence. The secular, then, is seldom merely so, for people/s are always being oriented, sanctified, empowered, healed and saved and that's what history, culture, society, economics and politics are, respectively, about as they advance any given pneumatological consensus. It occurs to me that all I am really saying is that Karl Rahner was onto something with his concept, supernatural existential, and his approach to thematic grace. But our late friend, Don Gelpi, in bringing forward his notion of grace as transmuted experience, brings a Peircean corrective to bear on Rahner's overly optimistic Kantian theological anthropology. If grace is indeed transmuted experience, then the supernatural existential is, instead, the pneumatological consensus. And the term "supernatural" existential is a redundancy. That's the most salient reality that I have to introduce: pneumatological consensus. The rest flows from that premise, which I experience in my bones and marrow. best, jb That attachment provides a summary of what I think might be my/our unique contribution to philosophical theology. What I would propose to contribute is a modest heuristic device that defines and maps categories of reality in a way that is vague enough to serve as a lingua franca/rosetta stone that will foster better philosophical, theological, religious and interreligious dialogue but also specific enough to reveal y/our pneumatological interpretation of reality. The more challenging academic spade-work 1

description

ItoccurstomethatallIamreallysayingisthatKarlRahnerwasontosomethingwith hisconcept,supernaturalexistential,andhisapproachtothematicgrace.Butourlate friend,DonGelpi,inbringingforwardhisnotionofgraceastransmutedexperience, bringsaPeirceancorrectivetobearonRahner'soverlyoptimisticKantiantheological anthropology.Ifgraceisindeedtransmutedexperience,thenthesupernatural existentialis,instead,thepneumatologicalconsensus.Andtheterm "supernatural" existentialisaredundancy. best, jb

Transcript of pneumatological consensus by sylvest

Page 1: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

Subject: RE: pneumatological philosophical theology

The most salient point that I have to contribute is that what most people experience asthe secular order represents --- not a lack of concern for the holy or religious, which ishow secular has often been narrowly conceived, but --- the pneumatological consensusof any given people at any given place or time. Here we apply the more broadlyconceived conceptions of the secular, which are not taken in any over against sense vis avis the holy, in other words, as a synonym for profane. Thus we look to these dictionarydefinitions, from saecularis; relating to the temporal; not overtly religious; notecclesiastical; having no particular religious affinities; not specifically relating to areligious body; not within the control of the Church.

Sociological realities reveal, for example, as per Amos Yong's typology of Spirit ---http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/9140/Default.aspx--- that, however ambiguous, the concept of spirit has always been and remainsubiquitous. While there may be a few, indeed, who explicitly reject either the holy orour more robust constructions of spirit, they do not represent the norm and, worldwideand throughout history, they are mere anomalies.

So our Lukan Christology/pneumatology not only breaks open the categories ofinterreligious dialogue but suggests that the historical, cultural, social, economic andpolitical orders are - respectively, implicitly & undeniably - also eschatological,theological, ecclesiological, sacramental and soteriological. In other words, the secularrepresents what can only be a pneumatological consensus, as there can be no denyingthat people who have belonged, desired, behaved and believed together as formed intheir diverse traditions will inevitably and inescapably bring such formation to bear inallways that they live, move and have their being in the world albeit with varying degreesof conscious awareness and competence. The secular, then, is seldom merely so, forpeople/s are always being oriented, sanctified, empowered, healed and saved and that'swhat history, culture, society, economics and politics are, respectively, about as theyadvance any given pneumatological consensus.

It occurs to me that all I am really saying is that Karl Rahner was onto something withhis concept, supernatural existential, and his approach to thematic grace. But our latefriend, Don Gelpi, in bringing forward his notion of grace as transmuted experience,brings a Peircean corrective to bear on Rahner's overly optimistic Kantian theologicalanthropology. If grace is indeed transmuted experience, then the supernaturalexistential is, instead, the pneumatological consensus. And the term "supernatural"existential is a redundancy.

That's the most salient reality that I have to introduce: pneumatological consensus. Therest flows from that premise, which I experience in my bones and marrow.

best,jb

That attachment provides a summary of what I think might be my/our uniquecontribution to philosophical theology. What I would propose to contribute is a modestheuristic device that defines and maps categories of reality in a way that is vagueenough to serve as a lingua franca/rosetta stone that will foster better philosophical,theological, religious and interreligious dialogue but also specific enough to reveal y/ourpneumatological interpretation of reality. The more challenging academic spade-work

1

Page 2: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

would follow as this heuristic is engaged to place different perspectives in dialogue.These perspectives could include those of the past as well as on the cutting-edge, acrossboth cultures and disciplines. I do not personally ambition that part of the project. I amnot heavily invested in that manuscript as it stands. I only suggest that it may proveuseful to the extent we can extract some of its material to further explicate ourheuristic/architectonic. (And some of it would likely obfuscate it.) In that vein, it maythus provide footnote material and may also reveal how my/our thinking evolved toyield the heuristic, itself. In a nutshell, it may be that what we can offer is simply anatural follow to our SID article. What form it will take will likely be revealed throughtime. I have no vision of that. I do know this; as I causally engage others' views and myown occasional musing through the lenses of that architectonic, it enhances my abilityto critique and self-critique and helps me to more easily get to the bottom of things in away that makes sense to me. This is no small accomplishment for a Myers-Briggs INTPfor whom mapping reality's categories has been a major life's quest - not justacademically, but - existentially. And your role in mentoring me to that place of restfills my heart with gratitude. Presently, I am drawn to silence and solitude, a life ofquiet prayer and simple service to my family and closest friends, including you andyours. Be well and Godspeed, johnboy

A Concise Overview of a Pneumatological Philosophical Theology

The pneumatological perspective engages an outlook that is incarnational, liturgicaland sacramental. It embraces the essential Christological and pneumatologicalapproaches of Anglican, Orthodox, Roman and other catholic traditions whileemphasizing nonhierarchical vehicles in the practice of the faith (not over against butas a complement to institutional models of church). It enjoys an increasingly globalP2P (peer to peer) interactivity among the world’s catholics.It is described using an indefinite article (“a” not “the”) because normativephilosophical and interpretive theological methods are autonomous.Furthermore, these methods employ falsifiable hypotheses and not a prioripositions.A metaphor that mixes both manufacturing and natural processes may be helpful inunderstanding this perspective.References to a phenomenology, ontology or metaphysic may be reconceived interms of raw materials. In this pneumatological architectonic (group of basiccategories), these raw materials are described as different types of relationships(intraobjective identity, intersubjective intimacy, intrasubjective integrity andinterobjective indeterminacy). An inventory of these raw materials considers reality’sgivens, 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) andwaste-products (disvalues and evil, which invite transformative processes). Theendproductsand byproducts represent higher and lesser goods. The category of wasteproductsinvites both theodicy hypotheses (why is there evil?) and questions ofsoteriology (what to do about evil?).Any discussion of methodology, including epistemology, may be thought of asprocesses.These represent the means by which we pursue our ends, the strategies orderedtoward our goals. They include our descriptive sciences, evaluative cultures,

2

Page 3: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

normative philosophies and interpretive religions. They require prudent riskmanagement, both attenuation and amplification, ordered toward the augmentationof value-realization. This prudential judgment employs an axis of co-creativity,where one pole represents the high frequency-low amplitude approach of ourformative influences (think soft power) and the other – the low frequency-highamplitude approach of our redemptive interventions (think hard power). Theaesthetic teleology (process ordered toward enhanced beauty) of emergent realitydoes not forcefully coerce what it can otherwise gently coax (or at least politelycoopt).Prudence avoids the competing and insidious axis of codependency, whereone pole represents the low frequency-low amplitude approach of an apatheticdisposition (such as depression and isolationism) and the other – the highfrequency-high amplitude interventions of a patheticover-involvement (such as codependency and militarism).The products that result from the processing of life’s raw materials are orderedtoward a consumer, a human being, who is a radically social animal. In this mixed1metaphor, then, any talk of an anthropology refers to the role of the consumer.Different human value-realizations of the truth have been described in varioushistorical narratives that have been inescapably eschatological (Spirit-oriented).Beauty has been celebrated in cultural (mostly individualized) and social (mainlyinstitutionalized) realities that are, respectively, theological (Spirit-sanctified) andecclesiological (Spirit-empowered). Goodness has been advanced and preservedby economic orders that are essentially sacramental (Spirit-healed).All of these value-realizations require a context of freedom advanced by politicalrealities that are soteriological (Spirit-saved).None of this is to suggest that truth, beauty, goodness and freedom are optimally (orequally) realized in every historical, cultural, social, economic and politicalmilieu, only to recognize that it has been the Spirit,Who has gently coaxed and,sometimes, more coercively cajoled, reality on a journey that is unmistakablypneumatological (Spirit-inspired).This is all to suggest that what we call the secular order is no reality from whichthe Spirit has been either partially bracketed or fully abstracted but represents,rather, humankind’s pneumatological consensus to date, even if such an accordis somewhat implicit and unconsciously competent and not otherwise negotiatedthrough explicitly conscious dialogical processes. Other semiotic (think meaning)realities are similarly negotiated (our theoretic concepts), non-negotiable (oursemiotic concepts without which meaning, itself, would not be possible), still-innegotiation(heuristic concepts or placeholders) or nonnegotiated (dogmaticconcepts) across the human community of value-realizers writ large.Thus we interpret the products of our trialectical axiology, the raw materials ofour triadic phenomenology, the processes of our trialogical epistemology, thetripartite anthropology of our consumer and the trinitarian theology of ourProducer.

Sorting Truth ClaimsWhether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoetic narrative -Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its context within the whole withoutdoing violence to its integrity? rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenchedfrom 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 someinterreligious, intercultural significance as human beings are, for the most part, vis avis the human condition, similarly situated and, furthermore

3

Page 4: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claims are not going to beinextricably bound within or to systematic formulae because they are otherwiseordinarily going to be related as individual strands of cable that collectively impartstrength and resilience one to the other in a way thatis much more informal. And the distinction in play, here, is that betweenfoundational and nonfoundational epistemologies, between deductive reasoningfrom a priori, apodictic propositions and a form of reasoning that otherwise cyclesthrough abductive and inductive inferences in a cumulativecase-like approach. Further, one must consider the distinction between2propositional 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 extentsuch 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 claimsand then further distinguish between prudential (moral/practical) norms andrelational norms (unitary/unitive), the latter which foster realizations of absoluteunitary being and/or intersubjective unitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to besure, but both from which solidarity and compassion seem to inevitably ensue? andwhich have profound existential import?The relational norms (ceremonial, liturgical, ascetical & mystical) may, perhaps, bethe most interesting when they lead to phenomenal experiences that do not somuch lend themselves to phenomenological descriptions (much lessmetaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwise bring about apractitioner's affective attunement with reality vis a vis how friendly and safe it isnotwithstanding all appearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfect lovedriving out all fear)?These relational norms are discussed here in the context of a personal God butcertainly apply to degrees of intimacy in human interactions.There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims that engages ourparticipatory imaginations more than our conceptualmapmaking?This is not to say that empirical, logical, moral and practical propositions areunimportant, only to realize that 'marital propositions' are far more ' engaging' andmeaning-giving, inviting what I like to call an existential-disjunctive: "I am goingto live as if She loves me."And when so many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ... perhapstruth will come flying in on the wings of beauty & goodness? as it is not merelyinformative 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 orneurotic, life-giving and relationship-enhancing or their opposite.Distinctions & Neologismspansemioentheismpneumatological consensus (the secular as)3nomological vs axiological truth claimsprudential vs relational norms

4

Page 5: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

unitary vs unitivedescriptive sciencesevaluative culturesnormative philosophiesinterpretive religionstheoretic conceptsemiotic conceptheuristic conceptdogmatic conceptintraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)intrasubjective integrityinterobjective indeterminacysimple phenomenal experiencevague phenomenological conceptsrobust ontological descriptionsrisk management, both attenuation & amplification, orderedtoward the augmentation ofvalue-realizationvalue-realizations asintrinsic vs extrinsic rewardsend-product vs by-productaxis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)theoretical theological capitulationpractical pastoral accommodationuniversal ethical norms of justice & ordinary virtue (moralityas 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 sanctifies2) history orients3) society empowers4) economy heals &45) 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 afuture fullness.This would clearly differ from any overly dialecticalperspective that would essentially run counter to a robustlyincarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all ofreality, even while recognizing significant differences in anydegree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures tocooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor

5

Page 6: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (knownto God alone).Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realismthat would draw too sharp a distinction between theeschatological and temporal significance of Gospelimperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharplydistinguish between our personal vocations and politicalstatecraft? 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 nothere)?And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel'srobustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy withGod 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 andwrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, anend-product of the latter, necessary in any case.Because of our radical human finitude and sinfulness(personal, social & institutional), any sanctioned departuresfrom these unitive norms would represent, then, no theoreticaltheological capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather,practical pastoral accommodations (for example, regarding anyuse of coercive violence).At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any essentiallymoral norms, which are otherwise transparent to human reasonwithout the benefit of special revelation(s) - differentiatethe Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a suitable meansto the ends of justice but its unitive aims clearly exceedthose, even breaking open a new category.5The whole point of my exploration is that we might morebroadly conceive just when and where and in whom we might encounter the Spirit!The unitive vs moral norm distinction moreso differentiates the Old & NewTestaments, as I see it. Keep in mind, though, that 'good people doing good things forgood reasons' characterizes moral norms.Our unitive norms entail a striving for loving intimacy, relating as lovers. So, what Iam saying is that morality is not what separates the Gospel messages from othermessages b/c anyone can do morality, which is transparent to human reason withoutthe benefit of special revelation, which is why we see good people doing good thingsfor good reasons everywhere. The Good News tells us that we are loved beyondimagining by a God,Who wants us to relate to Him as Daddy, or, if one prefers, asBetrothed.To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguished from those practices of theEast that are ordered toward gifting one with an experience of absolute unitary being,which I consider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our great causalconnectedness, reality's immense solidarity. The unitive striving gifts us with anintersubjective, 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 economyand every political effort, albeit in varying degrees.And the efficacies of the Spirit are being realized not just in the

6

Page 7: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

past or future but now, not just here and here but there andthere. And that the Spirit's invitation takes us -- not without but -- way beyond meremoral & practical concerns to robustly relational concerns.What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance towardreality involves relational values & relationships, evaluative posits of various types(truth, beauty, goodness, freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid oracquire 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(evaluativebeauty).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 andsaves 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 ourneeds for believing, desiring, behaving and belonging.A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes offormative spirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspects6as integral, would accord a certain primacy to belonging, which then forms ourdesires, which then elicit our behaviors which will nurture our interpretive stance orbeliefs. And these beliefs engage our participatory imagination way more than ourpropositional cognition, being way more performative than informative, much moreabout practical living than theoretical speculation.This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenant mindset, which certainlyvalues belonging, desiring, behaving and believing but seems toaccord a primacy to believe this and behave like that and then you can belong (andwhat's a desire?).What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task.We are unpacking ourdensely packed jargonistic prose. There is nothing magical aboutjargon but it is an eminently useful tool of any trade that consists, usually, of ashorthand that is highly nuanced, hence saving time and space.When it is used, noproblem, but it needs translating when being taken to a different audience. And that'sall that was about. And this is aside from any discussion of ecclesiology or models ofchurch, which, again, I don't see asmutually exclusive. I do see a role for experts in descriptive, normative andtheological sciences but that doesn't drive my pneumatology or view of the Spirit atwork in the world.We do want to collaboratively pursue the most nearly perfectarticulation of truth in creeds/myths, the most nearlyperfect celebrations of beauty in cult/liturgy, the most nearly perfect preservation ofthe good in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoyment of fellowship incommunity and this will require our fostering of Lonergan's conversions: intellectual,affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimalvaluerealization.In that, there are diverse ministries but one mission.

Pan-semio-entheismI call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely becauseI choose to prescind from any robustly metaphysical descriptions (an ontology) to amore vague phenomenological perspective, which categorizes our experiences of God

7

Page 8: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

in relational terms based on our intuitions, evaluations and performative responsesthat ensue in the wake of these experiences. Those categories include 1)intraobjective identity – regardingour vague intuitions of an absolute unitary being 2) intersubjective intimacy –regarding our unitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity – think ofLonergan’s conversions & formative spirituality and 4) interobjective indeterminacy– which hints at the methodological constraints and putative ontological occultingthat thwart natural theological inquiry, as some claim in-principle (which is toostrong a position to defend philosophically) and as I acknowledge (instead for allpractical purposes) at least, at thisstage of humankind’s sojourn.So, a suitably nuanced panentheism is not an ontology or metaphysic or naturaltheology but, instead, a theology of nature, which employs metaphor, analogy, myth,koan, song anddance. It does not aspire to describe what remains indescribable, tosay more than we can possibly know, does not attempt to prove too much or to telluntellable stories. The above categories certainly have ontological implications(which get analytically frustrated) that might flow from those distinctphenomenological categories of our God-experience but they honor, with reverentsilence and respectful apophasis, themysteriumtremendumet fascinans. Our7panentheism is then saying much more about the value-realizations that grow out ofour God-encounters but much less about causal joints and divine mechanics.We affirm THAT values are being realized from experiences without specifyingHOW.It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures, nowadays, we knowbetter than to use a modal ontology of possible, actual and necessarybut now substitute “probable” for necessary. Confronted with epistemicindeterminacy and ontological vagueness in navigating proximate reality, how muchmore folly we would engage when attempting to describe ultimate reality? Still,everywhere in reality, necessity suggest itself even as, nowhere in reality, have wefound it physically instantiated. Charles Sanders Peirce speaks of our abduction ofthe Ens Necessarium and I resonatewith that inference, weak though it may be. I precisely make the same appeal to theJewish intuition of God’s shrinking to make room for reality and my own theology ofnature then sees emergent reality participating in various degrees of semioticfreedom in an ontological-like hierarchy (crowned by the imago Dei).So, I don’t embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontology of proodos, mone andepistrophe as a description of metaphysical reality, much lessGod ad intra or ad extra in a natural theology. But I do believe it is enormouslyhelpful to honor and thereby categorize the many human phenomenal experiences ofGod that ensue from our subjunctive (as if)encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in a theology of nature that isself-aware of its metaphorical, mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed by suitablekataphatic, apophatic and relational predication and generally revealed.The Trinity and God’s relational nature is specially revealed as Love, exceedinganything we could otherwise infer empirically, logically, practically or morally fromnature.At least this is my attempt to grapple with the same issues.

Systematic Theology?Sometimes, to me, it feels like systematic theology is anoxymoron, practical theology is a redundancy and naturaltheology is a fool's errand. And where natural theology isconcerned, I'm talking about the kind that gets all

8

Page 9: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

metaphysical using somebody's pet root metaphor, be that beingor substance or process or social-relational or flavah dujour. Our realization of life's values just seems a lot moreinformal, a lot messier, if you will, than all of theotherwise neat formulas that the theo-wonks are fashioningwith the aim of shoehorning creation & Creator into some OneSiZe FiTs AlL Gospel sandals.But a theology of nature that begins within the faith andspontaneously breaks into lyric and psalm and myth and koanand song and poem with metaphors cascading and collapsing ---engenders fascination and mystery, awakens desires andlongings, fosters communal celebrations and forms ecologicalsensibilities, reinforcing how everything belongs. In this8belonging our desires are formed such that compassionatebehaviors naturally ensue.What we call our beliefs, then, aremore so interpretations, less so descriptions, what we mightcall existential disjunctives that suggest: if we live as if... then thus and such! So, we participate imaginatively bycelebrating with God, other, world and self as if we allreally belonged to one another in solidarity and compassionateinteractions then ensue toward others and our environment.Finally, since all interpretive approaches are inescapablytautological and all metaphors eventually collapse, one wayscience can enhance our understanding of God's word andcreation is by providing more accurate descriptions for ourinterpretations such that our metaphors are more robust (lastlonger before collapsing - as we mine their meanings) and ourtautologies are more taut (tautologies do not provide new infobut that doesn't mean they are not true or that all areequally true; there are criteria for how well they "fit"reality).

The Gospel BrandWhat 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 enjoysthe robustly relational intrinsic rewards (truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, trust,love) that are ends unto themselves, their own reward, in no need of apology orexplanation.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 tootherwise describe, norm or even evaluate it, all activities (e.g.science & moral reasoning) that are already transparent to human reason. This is notto suggest that it would not have moral implications for, if we act as if we reallybelieve the Good News, we will then exceed the demands of justice!

An Existential Disjunctive - to live as ifChristian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretive stance(Christology/Pneumatology), has normative implications. Beyond our practical andmoral norms with their extrinsic rewards, it introduces a new category of norms, theunitive, which are intrinsically rewarding. These unitive norms provide suitablemeans for moral ends but their aimtranscends our practical and moral concerns.

9

Page 10: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our imaginative participation in anintimate relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historicalperspective eschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically,empowering our societal institutions ecclesiologically, healing our economic orderssacramentally and saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And what singularreality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves? Love. Love transforms our9ultimate concerns. The norms of Christian love fosterour realization of solidarity with all of reality.As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our imaginative participation in anintimate relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historicalperspective eschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically,empowering our societal institutions ecclesiologically, healing our economic orderssacramentally and saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And what singularreality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves? Love. Love transforms ourultimate concerns. The norms of Christian love fosterour realization of solidarity with all of reality.

Communal Discernmentcommunal discernment - my favorite redundancy, and it appliesin science, philosophy & religion b/c, in my approach, atleast, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology (contraany notion of, for example, a religious epistemology vs othertypes). This is not to say that there is no such phenomenalexperience as "hearing from God" but, even then, theindividual 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 theprudential & theological judgments of community (anothersource transcendent of one's mere self).We don't want to denysigns & wonders, which may be proleptic realizations of whatmay some day be an eschatological fullness but we want toresist the tendency to sensationalize them in a way thatdevalues the splendor of the ordinary and the stupefaction weshould all be experiencing in every waking (and dreaming)moment at the ... the ... the ...

Church PolityBeyond the difficult to pin down empirical data re: the exactnature, rates, causes & handling of abuse incidents, in onedenomination vs another (and some fairly good studies areemerging even as some fairly dubious & facile analysespersist), there is a related issue in play re: church polityvis a vis any question re: a grassroots 'people'sreform' of the church.It may be that, in theory, the sense of the faithful (sensusfidelium) or "what has been received & practiced by thefaithful" is what guides the Teaching Office (magisterium) butit seems pretty obvious to me that, in practice, this processhas been seriously flawed.Apparently, this is less the case with the methodologiesemployed in formulating & articulating social teachings evenas it has clearly been the case where church disciplines (e.g.celibacy, women's ordination), liturgical practices (e.g. opencommunion, sacramental reception by divorced & remarried) and

10

Page 11: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

10moral doctrines (e.g. contraception, homoerotic behavior) areconcerned. Catholic social teaching has experienced threerather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic socialteaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shiftsin 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 muchbroader & deeper consultative, active-listening process.The good news, then, is that the seeds of reform are there forthe planting if only the church could cross-pollinate itsseminal social doctrine cultivation and plant and nurture themin the furrows of its church discipline, liturgical practice &moral doctrine rows. This will require pulling the weeds ofpatriarchalism, hierarchicalism, clericalism, sexism and so onfrom those rows as has been done on the others. Or, to changemetaphors, one has reason to hope that the seismic shifts thathave already taken place already, to the edification of thefaithful and the world community writ large, will cause sometectonic reshuffling as their aftershocks emanate out fromthat epicenter.There are roles to play, then, in ongoing institutional reformand there are end-arounds, too, via non-institutional vehicles(not mutually exclusive). In some sense, it seems to me thatthe hierarchicalism & clericalism is not just a top-downoppression but that it reflects where so much of the laityremains.We don't want to over-identify THE church with eitherits institutional form or its clerical leadership but wecannot deny that their re-formation and ongoing transformationwould help advance the Kingdom. A significant butmarginalized minority continues to voice prophetic protest andlive in loyal dissent; others change denominations or employnon-institutional vehicles.Whatever the case, a denominationis but a means and not the end, thank God.

The Role of GovernmentIn 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 thefederal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. Totry to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralisticsociety, isn't workable and quickly devolves into thecounterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroacheson personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."The government, then, is to be about the administration ofjustice, leaving the demands of charity to individualinitiatives. Even what have traditionally been called11"entitlement" programs are not really in place to administermercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public orderb/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,

11

Page 12: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos anddisorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptlynamed "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their ownneeds b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and otherat-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remainout of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collectiveresources of our population are so scarce that maybe even allof our population's basic needs might not be met by them. Thenuance is that I am saying that the government is in noposition to commandeer those resources that we, thru ourselfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing tofreely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitableinitiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the problem, I'm afraid.The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & notused to incentivize the allocation of private capital. Theycan give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd likeper the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hopethey seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &not income & never both.In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks forBig Oil, the incentives should be repealed for allmanufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenueenhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter mustcome from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c thosewill always exceed our available governmental resources, whichmust be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needsrequire, then, some tragic triage decisions.Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,no eggs!12

12

Page 13: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

13

Page 14: pneumatological consensus by sylvest

14