OMG gimme gimme

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!?

Karl Barth and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1962

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.