Sorting Truth Claims

Whether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoeticnarrative

Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its contextwithin the whole without doing violence to its integrity?rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenched from itscontext in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation?

And the general default stance would be that most truth claimsshould have some interreligious, intercultural significance ashuman beings are, for the most part, vis a vis the humancondition, similarly situated and, furthermore

Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claimsare not going to be inextricably bound within or to systematicformulae because they are otherwise ordinarily going to berelated as individual strands of cable that collectivelyimpart strength and resilience one to the other in a way thatis much more informal. And the distinction in play, here, isthat between foundational and nonfoundational epistemologies,between deductive reasoning from a priori, apodicticpropositions and a form of reasoning that otherwise cyclesthrough abductive and inductive inferences in a cumulativecase-like approach. Further, one must consider the distinctionbetween propositional claims and nonpropositional posits.

As one moves within and across various communities of value-realizers, one must consider the nature of the concepts beingemployed vis a vis to what extent such concepts enjoytheoretic (negotiated), heuristic (still-in-negotiation),dogmatic (non-negotiated) or semiotic (non-negotiable) status.

One must further distinguish between articulations of anygiven theory of truth (correspondence & congruence) versus aproposal 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/orintersubjective unitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to besure, but bothfrom 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 leadto

phenomenal experiences that do not so much lend themselves to

1

phenomenological descriptions (much lessmetaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwisebring about a practitioner's affective attunement with realityvis a vis how friendly and safe it is notwithstanding allappearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfectlove driving out all fear)?

There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims thatengages our participatory imaginations more than ourconceptual 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 whenso many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ... perhapstruth 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 axisof co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles) or the axisof codependency (a/pathetic poles) based on their frequencyand amplitude, revealing behavior to be existential orneurotic, life-giving and relationship-enhancing or theiropposite.

Distinctions & Neologisms

pansemioentheism

pneumatological consensus (the secular as)

nomological vs axiological trut claimsprudential vs relational normsunitary vs unitive

descriptive sciencesevaluative culturesnormative philosophiesinterpretive religions

theoretic conceptsemiotic conceptheuristic conceptdogmatic concept

intraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)intrasubjective integrityinterobjective indeterminacysimple phenomenal experience

vague phenomenological conceptsrobust ontological descriptions

2

risk management, both attenuation & amplification, orderedtoward the augmentation ofvalue-realization

value-realizations asintrinsic vs extrinsic rewardsend-product vs by-product

axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)

theoretical theological capitulationpractical pastoral accommodation

universal 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 &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 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 poorformation 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 political

3

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 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 merely moral 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 coerciveviolence).

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.

The whole point of my exploration is that we might morebroadly conceivejust when and where and in whom we might encounter the Spirit!The unitive vs moralnorm distinction moreso differentiates the Old & NewTestaments, 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 amsaying is that morality is not what separates the Gospelmessages from other messages b/canyone can do morality, which is transparent to human reasonwithout the benefit ofspecial revelation, which is why we see good people doing goodthings for good reasonseverywhere. The Good News tells us that we are loved beyondimagining by a God, Whowants us to relate to Him as Daddy, or, if one prefers, asBetrothed.

To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguishedfrom those practices of the Eastthat are ordered toward gifting one with an experience ofabsolute unitary being, which Iconsider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our greatcausal connectedness, reality'simmense solidarity. The unitive striving gifts us with an

4

intersubjective, interpersonalintimacy. 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 Spiritare being realized not just in thepast or future but now, not just here and here but there andthere. And that the Spirit'sinvitation takes us -- not without but -- way beyond meremoral & practical concerns torobustly relational concerns.

What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance towardreality involves relationalvalues & relationships, evaluative posits of various types(truth, beauty, goodness,freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid oracquire dis/values) anddescriptive 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 interpretivestance that takes us meta- via creed (truth), cult-ivation(beauty), code (goodness) andcommunity (relational).

The Spirit (based on Lukan Christology, too) orients,sanctifies, empowers, heals and savesus and these functions are manifest in our churches,respectively, via eschatology, theology,ecclesiology, sacrament and soteriology, mapping roughly overan otherwise, againrespectively, 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 offormativespirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspectsas integral, would accord acertain primacy to belonging, which then forms our desires,which then elicit our behaviorswhich will nurture our interpretive stance or beliefs. Andthese beliefs engage ourparticipatory imagination way more than our propositionalcognition, being way moreperformative than informative, much more about practicalliving than theoretical

5

speculation.

This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenantmindset, which certainly valuesbelonging, desiring, behaving and believing but seems toaccord a primacy to believe thisand behave like that and then you can belong (and what's adesire?).

What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task. Weare unpacking our denselypacked jargonistic prose. There is nothing magical aboutjargon but it is an eminently usefultool of any trade that consists, usually, of a shorthand thatis highly nuanced, hence savingtime and space. When it is used, no problem, but it needstranslating when being taken to adifferent audience. And that's all that was about. And this isaside from any discussion ofecclesiology or models of church, which, again, I don't see asmutually exclusive. I do see arole for experts in descriptive, normative and theologicalsciences but that doesn't drive mypneumatology or view of the Spirit at work in the world. We dowant to collaborativelypursue the most nearly perfect articulation of truth increeds/myths, the most nearlyperfect celebrations of beauty in cult/liturgy, the mostnearly perfect preservation of thegood in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoyment offellowship in community andthis will require our fostering of Lonergan's conversions:intellectual, affective, moral,sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimalvalue-realization. In that, there arediverse ministries but one mission.

I call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely becauseI choose to prescindfrom any robustly metaphysical descriptions (an ontology) to amore vaguephenomenological perspective, which categorizes ourexperiences of God in relationalterms based on our intuitions, evaluations and performativeresponses that ensue in thewake of these experiences. Those categories include 1)intraobjective identity – regardingour vague intuitions of an absolute unitary being 2) –intersubjective intimacy – regardingour unitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity – think ofLonergan’s conversions &formative spirituality and 4) interobjective indeterminacy –which hints at themethodological constraints and putative ontological occultingthat thwart naturaltheological inquiry, as some claim in-principle (which is toostrong a position to defend

6

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 ormetaphysic or natural theologybut, instead, a theology of nature, which employs metaphor,analogy, myth, koan, song anddance. It does not aspire to describe what remainsindescribable, to say more than we canpossibly know, does not attempt to prove too much or to telluntellable stories. The abovecategoriescertainly have ontological implications (which getanalytically frustrated) thatmight flow from those distinct phenomenological categories ofour God-experience but theyhonor, with reverent silence and respectful apophasis, themysterium tremendum etfascinans. Our panentheism is then saying much more about thevalue-realizations thatgrow out of our God-encounters but much less about causaljoints and divine mechanics.We affirm THAT values are being realized from experienceswithout specifying HOW.It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures,nowadays, we know betterthan to use a modal ontology of possible, actual and necessarybut now substitute“probable” for necessary. Confronted with epistemicindeterminacy and ontologicalvagueness in navigating proximate reality, how much more follywe would engage whenattempting to describe ultimate reality? Still, everywhere inreality, necessity suggest itselfeven as, nowhere in reality, have we found it physicallyinstantiated. Charles Sanders Peircespeaks of our abduction of the Ens Necessarium and I resonatewith that inference, weakthough it may be. I precisely make the same appeal to theJewish intuition of God’sshrinking to make room for reality and my own theology ofnature then sees emergentreality participating in various degrees of semiotic freedomin an ontological-like hierarchy(crowned by the imago Dei).

So, I don’t embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontologyof proodos, mone andepistrophe as a description of metaphysical reality, much lessGod ad intra or ad extra in anatural theology. But I do believe it is enormously helpful tohonor and thereby categorizethe many human phenomenal experiences of God that ensue fromour subjunctive (as if)encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in atheology of nature that is self-awareof its metaphorical, mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed

7

by suitable kataphatic,apophatic and relational predication and generally revealed.The Trinity and God’s relationalnature is specially revealed as Love, exceeding anything wecould otherwise inferempirically, 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 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 allmetaphysical 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 thisbelonging 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 Brand

What differentiates the Gospel brand is an interpretation ofreality as both created &friendlier than we could ever imagine. Authentic friendship,however, transcends the needfor extrinsic rewards (what's in it for me?) and enjoys therobustly relational intrinsic

8

rewards (truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, trust, love) thatare ends unto themselves, theirown reward, in no need of apology or explanation.Now, "to transcend" does not mean to "go without" but, rather,"beyond." Still, for some, itmight invite a re-EMPHASIS?

Another implication is that religion's core mission is tointerpret reality and not to otherwisedescribe, norm or even evaluate it, all activities (e.g.science & moral reasoning) that arealready transparent to human reason. This is not to suggestthat it would not have moralimplications for, if we act as if we really believe the GoodNews, we will then exceed thedemands of justice!

An Existential Disjunctive - to live as if

Christian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretivestance (Christology/Pneumatology),has normative implications. Beyond our practical and moralnorms with their extrinsicrewards, it introduces a new category of norms, the unitive,which are intrinsicallyrewarding. These unitive norms provide suitable means formoral ends but their aimtranscends our practical and moral concerns.

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters ourimaginative participation in an intimaterelationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historicalperspective eschatologically,sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically, empoweringour societal institutionsecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentallyand saving our politicalendeavors soteriologically. And what singular reality orients,sanctifies, empowers, healsand saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. Thenorms of Christian love fosterour realization of solidarity with all of reality.

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters ourimaginative participation in an intimaterelationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historicalperspective eschatologically,sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically, empoweringour societal institutionsecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentallyand saving our politicalendeavors soteriologically. And what singular reality orients,sanctifies, empowers, healsand saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. Thenorms of Christian love fosterour realization of solidarity with all of reality.

9

Communal Discernment

communal 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 Polity

Beyond 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 RCC.

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) andmoral 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 its

10

seminal 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 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 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 called"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,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

11

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