Soteriology- Gimme what I want when I want it.
What sayeth you Anthony? My classmate Marj does a great job of summarizing the various doctrines of "salvation" at her blog Ministerial Musing. In her conclusion she opts for the Reconciliation Theory as the "one [she] is most comfortable with" and following Piaget she argues that
"Accepting Reconciliation Theory is an emotionally advanced spiritual position, as it requires the coexistence of reasonably high self-esteem and a great deal of humility - seemingly contradictory characteristics to those who do not know and accept the Truth of who they are."
I assume that the Truth of who one is is the Christ, the potential of Christ Consciousness argued by Unity theology. (Thousands of citations omitted).
One cannot help but be
amused at the attempts of a universalist syncretic religious belief such as
Unity to co-opt foundational principles of the tradition from which it emerged
as a way defining its diffrance. Such attempts beg the question for the
necessity of the attempting to thus define oneself, for in the end all such
attempts seem, well, derivative and pathetic.
I understand that subsequent generations react to and rebel from their
parents as a way of progressing toward individuality, but true art creates anew
and gives the universe a new model rather than simply microwaving the old stuff
doesn’t it?
I know I know- these are
issues that will be presented to us in our churches. But why meet them with the same old tired out
theology that never worked for us in the first place? Why be wishy washy and try to say “Oh well
sin is just ‘missing the mark’ or ‘error thinking’” instead of saying you’re
thinking is not productive, try something new!?
I remember when I was in Catholic seminary before (this is going back 20 years so forgive any error) we studied (a Protestant) theologian named Karl Barth, whose book The Humanity of God argued for a
completely separate God “out there” which man can in no way reach or know. It is only through God’s actions (grace) of
incarnation, resurrection, etc., of Jesus that man is redeemed or redeemable. Is Barth’s somewhat radical idea that the
actions of grace in the incarnation and resurrection correct that God became
Man and therefore Man had entry to God?
In other words, is Christ consciousness “oneness” with God or an
overarching overweening self-apotheosis by an always existentially challenged ape
family descendent? For Barth, in the
incarnation humanity and divinity merge (the Unity offshoot being “Oneness.”), an
explanation for which traditional theology creates the Trinity. Unity paints a thin layer of Christian terms
and doctrine to what is essentially an Eastern monistic panentheistic spirituality. Why bother? Marketing and Money to an already established
audience?
“At-one-ment” is quite
ingenious, and many of the traditional re-visions of the Fillmores et. al. are
so. Through many series of metaphorical
(“metaphysical”) biblical exegesis, the old forms are transformed into “new
thought.” Bravo!
So back to Marj and
Reconciliation Theory- if God was “reconciling” man to Him/It/Herself wherein
God “saves” us (from what? Original sin?) because It “loves” us, then are we
not simply re-creating a God in our Human image as some Divine Functional Process
who Is What It Is defined only by what It Does For Me? Yikes!
So we are the addicts in active addiction going to the dealer to get
what we need when we need it. God is not
just great, God is Pimp!
Werd.
