Rejecting the Reconquista for Christ's Mission of Inclusion

Earlier this week I found the Reconquista movement, with its Episcopal version, which details a plan to "re-conquer" historic denominations and take over their property, resources, and reputation with a form of exclusionary Christian faith. In these pages, we find "95 Theses" which are a syncretistic mixture of three strands of incompatible ideas: 

First, there are ancient Creedal beliefs about the Triune God, incarnate in the Lord Jesus Christ, who works through the Holy Spirit to extend the mission and incarnation of Christ through the sacramental community of the Church. 

Second, there are explicitly Reformed or Calvinist or "Evangelical" framings of the Nature of God and of salvation which are historically rejected by most non-Reformed Christians (such as Catholics, Orthodox, and non-Reformed Protestants). 

Third, there are modernist exclusionary stances to reject certain social/racial critiques, political-economic ideas, and gender/sexual identities, while at the same time implicitly or explicitly affirming other modern categories of race, social structure, politics, economics, gender, and sexuality. 

This is to say they do precisely what they accuse others of doing: They use reformed and modern categories to view and mold the Ancient Creedal Faith, rather than interpreting theology and culture through the lens of the Ancient Creeds. 

All is Center: CS Lewis’ vision of the Great Dance

Frequently I have discussions with people who want to de-center humanity from the most important place in the universe, in order to help us realize that we are part of a greater whole as people who live interdependently with the rest of creation. This attempt is noble, because many have misused Scriptures such as Genesis 1 where it tells the first humans they are “made in God’s image” to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and rule it” along with the creatures who dwell on Earth. A dominionist reading of this can lead to a theological form of “manifest destiny” which makes humans entitled to pillage and pollute creation in order to gratify selfish desires for consumption and domination. 

The Complexity of Love's Simplicity

After posting my last essay, Fr. Kimel has noted that David Bentley Hart affirms Divine Simplicity in many places and "divine simplicity is an expression of negative theology. It doesn't say anything positive about God; it simply denies that he is composed of parts." And this is absolutely true about Hart, and his recent book "You are Gods" has several mentions of the implications of Divine Simplicity. But the important distinction I would like to make is that in the West, Divine Simplicity is frequently tied to knowledge of evil which determines created beings to be evil. This makes God the cause of evil, because nothing could be otherwise than God has known it and made it to be. 

Hart's concept of Simplicity states almost the exact opposite conclusion: God's Simplicity implies that God will inexorably work good for all beings, even after their choices have led them into bondage to evil. Yet, for Aquinas (and those who follow him) the simplicity and unity of God leads to the inexorable conclusion that God will damn some or most eternally, for God's own glory. So, while I can agree that the concepts of Divine Simplicity as put forward by Aquinas and Hart are similar insofar as they are an apophatic statement of what "God is not" in Godself, they are perfectly opposite as regards what this entails for God as God relates to a created world. At least this is what it seems to me, and it seems that with such a wide difference of effect, therefore one cannot say they are the same concept of Divine Simplicity.

So the major difference I am getting at is that Divine Simplicity is pernicious if it is used as a rationale for why God would will and cause evil in the world, including damning many or most humans eternally. 

Divine Simplicity is simply too simple

Recently the amazing Fr. Aidan Kimel has written an article on how the "free will theodicy" is incompatible with Thomas Aquinas' concept of Divine Omniscience. This "free will" argument is that evil and suffering and death are the consequence of creatures freely choosing to deny and destroy themselves and others, and not because God has directly willed evil to happen. Yet, Aquinas' account of Divine Knowledge would deny this, and posit God as the active cause for all choices and events.

The Particular Exclusiveness of Generic Deism

As a chaplain, there is a view I often run across among non-religious, college-educated folks in postmodern western culture that Christianity is scandalous in its particularity, and particularly offensive to non-Christian people. In particular, the Name of Jesus, the idea of the Trinity, and especially the cross and blood of Jesus are all stumbling blocks. Instead, it is often suggested that we omit or underplay language that includes Jesus, or the Trinity, or the cross, or other uniquely particular expressions of access to God through distinctly Christian means (such as the Eucharistic Prayer or the Lord's Prayer). 

Instead it is often preferred to substitute generic addresses to "The Divine", or simply "God", or even Western philosophical concepts such as "Ground of Being". This may be suggested with the idea that a more Generic Deist language will make God more "accessible": A general prayer to a general God or Divine, who has no particular story, nor any particular name or way of access, but which is accessible in a generic way by all methods and all names, as well as no methods and no names.

On Miracles that seem “trivial”

Every now and then we come across stories of religiously significant events that do not seem to be adequately explained by natural laws, but which seem to be trivial or silly or even harmful to the non-initiated. In Christianity, these often happen around supposed “Eucharistic Miracles” such as where the consecrated host appears to bleed, or stigmata appear on the hands of the priest, or when communion bread or wine is suddenly multiplied. I have also seen stories on icons that weep sweet smelling oil, or bodies of saints that appear to never decompose. But events like this also happen in other religions, such as in the late 90’s when Hindu statues miraculously leaked milk. 

A Provocation on Mencken and Saving Humanity

Every so often a cautionary quote about philanthropy makes its rounds, warning us against those who claim to have the best interests of others in mind:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." (H.L. Mencken)

The Many Loves of the Love of God

When we speak of the Love of God, or praise God for God's Loving-Kindness, we are remembering that above all, God is Love. But this Love is not merely the feeling we tend to associate with liking something a great deal, such as when we say "I love this coffee" or "I love that activity". Rather, we mean that God's Love is something deep and active, constantly working for the abundant life and flourishing of those God loves. In short, it is Love operative in sacrificial acts of kindness: Loving Kindness. Many Scriptural words and concepts fill out what this Divine Loving-Kindness means.