http://cathlimergent.ning.com/
Radically “rooting” orthodoxy in Jesus, orthopathy in contemplation, orthopraxy in social justice & orthocommunio in authentic community
Follow Cathlimergence on Twitter
Richard Rohr speaks of the four pillars of the Emerging Church 1) honest Jesus scholarship 2) peace & social justice 3) contemplation & nonduality and 4) noninstitutional vehicles.
I would like to unpack this a little because I think it speaks directly to his approach to apologetics, which is merely “doing it better,” this over against any overt proselytizing or critiquing of others (putting them down, maybe, to preserve our own sick identity structures). This fits well with the approach to evangelism articulated by the founder of Richard’s order, the little man from Assisi, whom I’ll roughly paraphrase: Take every opportunity to evangelize and, only if absolutely necessary, use words!
There is clearly a self-subversive reform underway in the Emerging Church. The first pillar of honest Jesus scholarship, in its efforts to articulate the truth we have encountered, addresses an orthodoxy that eschews dogmatism . The second pillar of peace & social justice, in its efforts to preserve the goodness we have encountered, addresses an orthopraxy that eschews legalism . The third pillar of contemplation & nonduality, in its efforts to celebrate the beauty we have encountered, addresses an orthopathos that eschews ritualism. The fourth pillar of noninstitutional vehicles, in its efforts to enjoy the fellowship (unity) we have encountered, addresses an orthocommunio that eschews institutionalism.
So, in some sense, the great traditions have always been about the articulation of truth in creed, preservation of goodness in code, celebration of beauty in cult (or ritual) and enjoyment of fellowship in community.
An authentically integralist approach, then, will recognize Wilber’s quadrants such that the objective enjoys its moment of primacy in our pursuit of truth, the interobjective in our pursuit of goodness, the subjective in our pursuit of beauty and the intersubjective in our pursuit of community. In what I have called 1) the descriptive focus of human concern, we pursue truth in asking What is it? 2) the normative focus, we pursue goodness in asking How do I acquire/avoid it? 3) the evaluative focus, we pursue beauty in asking What’s it to me? and 4) interpretive focus, we pursue unity in asking How does all this tie-together (re-ligate)?
Each focus is a distinctly different value-pursuit and entails distinctly autonomous methodologies, which is only to recognize that science, philosophy, culture and religion are, indeed, autonomous disciplines, methodologically. What relates them integrally is that they are anything but autonomous, axiologically, which is only to recognize that none of these value-pursuits, alone, can effect a value-realization without some involvement of the other foci of human concern, each which presupposes the others, each which nests within the others, holonically. We can say that they are intellectually-related but not logically-related; this is a vague heuristic and not some purely formal system.
Where we are headed, ecclesiologically, in my view then, is toward a model of church that, respectively, vis a vis Rohr’s pillars, is 1) pneumatological, which is to say that it will primarily engage in interreligious dialogue from the perspective of the Spirit, this over against any ecclesiocentric approach and perhaps even bracketing our various Christological approaches 2) servant, which is to actively grapple with the questions of social justice & peace 3) herald, which is to recognize the orthopathic efficacies of the contemplative, nondual stance, inviting others to transformation via a shared social imaginary as cultivated by authentically transformative liturgical approaches, this participatory approach emphasized over (while complementing) the sterile and stale propositional apologetics of yesteryear and 4) mystical body, a visible manifestation of an invisible reality, to be sure, but dropping our old and insidious overemphases on the manifold and varied institutional structures. (cf. Dulles’ models of church)
Wim Drees defines theology as a cosmology plus an axiology. Drees notes that, and serious emergentists might pay special attention, the discontinuity in emergent reality threatens the unity of the sciences. Because laws, themselves, emerge, we are on thin theoretical ice when speculating metaphysically re: the nature of primal reality, causal joints for divine prerogatives, and so on.
While cosmological and axiological approaches are integrally-related, they are methodologically autonomous. Cosmology answers the questions 1) Is that a fact? (descriptively) and 2) How do I best acquire/avoid that? (normatively). Daniel Helminiak, a Lonergan protege, would describe these as positivist and philosophic activities and rightly affirms, in my view, the philosophic as spiritual quest.
Even if one concedes, for argument’s sake, our ability to travel from the descriptive to the prescriptive, given to normative, is to ought (and Mortimer Adler well-demonstrates that we can get from an is to an ought) still, due to our universal human condition, wherein we are all, for the most part, similarly situated, even if our reasoning differs for certain precepts & would be theoretically relativistic, still, from a practical perspective our precepts are going to be remarkably consistent.
The practical upshot of all of this is that cosmology, thus narrowly conceived, is truly Everybody’s Story, which is to say we really shouldn’t go around wily-nily just making this stuff up because it isn’t really negotiable but is given.
Axiology answers the questions 3) What’s it to me? (evaluatively) and 4) How’s all this tie-together? (interpretively). Here we are dealing with human value-realizations, their definitions and prioritization, and with religion. The reason we even have such a category as interpretation results from our radical human finitude. It is not that we don’t affirm such a metaphysical realism as recognizes the validity and soundness of a putative best interpretative “vision of the whole,” but that, at this stage of humankind’s journey, it is exceedingly problematical to fallibly discern and adjudicate between competing interpretations, especially as they fit into elaborate tautologies, all which are variously taut in their grasp of reality.
In some sense, our cosmology comprises the propositional aspect of our metanarratives (aspiring to successful and robust descriptions with indications of correspondence) and our axiology comprises the narrative aspect (aspiring to vague but successful references with invitations to particpate). The postmodern critique does not instill incredulity toward our metanarratives per se; rather, it takes note of how every narrative aspect of our metanarratives is rooted in myth (yes, including scientism no less than fideism). Analogous to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, we cannot prove our system’s axioms within the system (evidentially, rationally, presuppositionally or propositionally), itself, but this does not mean that we cannot taste and see (existentially, as recommended by Ignatius, the Psalmist & enlightened speculative cosmologists …) the truth of those axioms, which we would necessarily express – not formally, but – through narrative, story, myth.
This framework establishes a certain amount of epistemic parity between worldviews and religions, which then get authenticated by how well they institutionalize conversions: intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious and adjudicated with an equiplausibility principle, which looks for life-giving and relationship-enhancing criteria when choosing between otherwise ambiguous courses of action. We can also remain on the lookout for Gospel norms like a language of descent or “downward mobility” and a prophetic element (self-criticism). So, we do draw distinctions between a theory of truth and a test of truth and we do recognize that some aspects of reality are best grasped through correspondence while other aspects grasp us through participation.
One lesson we take away is that our reliance on myth reveals that reality overflows our ability to process it, that creation, Creator and people present unfathomable depth dimensions that no encounter can capture or exhaust. If in our cosmologies, with their empirical, logical and practical foci, it is very much our intent to get the right answers, when it comes to our axiologies, with their relational foci, then, our quest is to get the right questions (Whom does the grail serve?).
Our fundamental trust in uncertain reality requires no apologetic, then, and fashioning one is as futile as explaining why we love our Beloved in empirical, logical and practical terms (as if only extrinsically rewarding). Embodiments of truth, beauty, goodness and unity are their own rewards (intrinsically); they grasp us and possess us as we participate in these values with our existential orientations to these transcendental imperatives. As we distinguish between wants and needs, real and acquired desires, lesser and higher goods, our axiologies orient and dispose us to the higher goods, which we can enjoy without measure, and properly dispose us to the created goods that we really need in moderation and not in a disordered (John of the Cross) or inordinate (Ignatius) way.
Our cosmology, which is scientific and philosophic, descriptive and normative, also includes our essentially spiritual quest, which is shaped by the positivist and normative sciences and addresses the orthopraxes of our ethical and moral strivings as well as those ascetical practices and disciplines that enhance awareness, including certain meditative practices, many which come from the East and are not inextricably bound to any religion or worldview (hence some are indeed spiritual without being religious, explicitly anyway). In our cosmology, we better come to grips with our empirical, logical and practical foci of concern and foster intellectual, moral and social conversions.
Our axiology, which is interpretive and evaluative, goes beyond but not without our cosmology and is shaped by our religious myths and liturgical celebrations, which address the orthopathos of our prayer and worship, public and private, forming and reinforcing our aspirations and hopes, answering the question “What’s it to me?” in a manner that is properly ordered, truly fitting and proper, which is to say, Eucharistically. There is no worldview or metanarrative without either an implicit or explicit axiology that is integrally related to one’s cosmology (so we’d best tend to an explicit axiology in a consciously-competent manner). In fact, in addition to their methodological autonomy, our axiologies enjoy a primacy in relation to our cosmologies, although otherwise axiologically-integrated. It is our orthopathos that mediates between our orthodoxy and orthopraxis to effect an authentic orthocommunio. If our unitive strivings come up short, whether geopolitically or in our primary communities and families, we might look at our prayer lives for, if we invoke, it is only because we have been convoked. In our axiology, we better come to grips with our relational foci of concern, where our value-realizations are trust, assent, fidelity, loyalty, faith, hope, love, eros, philia, agape and so on and we better foster affective and religious conversions.
We do our best to discern where Lonergan’s conversions have been institutionalized, looking to see which interpretive approach best fosters ongoing intellectual, affective, moral and social growth and development, leading to human authenticity. But we’re clearly in more negotiable territory here with discourse dominated more by dogmatic (non-negotiated) and heuristic (still-in-negotiation) concepts, this contrasted to cosmological discourse, which has more theoretic (negotiated in community) concepts and semiotic concepts (non-negotiable b/c meaning, itself, is invested in them).
In defining what my own Radical Emergence approach would be about, then, I see it as an axiological vision of the whole. In such a metanarrative, cosmology is left to the positivist, empirical scientific methodologies, and to the philosophic, normative sciences. Religion, an interpretive endeavor, is constrained by the positivist & normative sciences, and employs a different & autonomous methodology (myth and liturgy), even though integrally-related to the other methodologies in every value-realization. To be clear, by “integrally-related,” I am suggesting that a cosmology presupposes an axiology and vice versa, that our descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative foci of human concern presuppose each other.
As an axiological endeavor, the Emerging Church would foster the intentional evolution of the interpretive and evaluative aspects of human value-realizations, which would enhance (and transvalue), also, our cosmological modeling power without interfering with its autonomous methodologies (faith illuminating understanding). Over against both scientism and fideism, the Emerging Church would not conflate or compromise the autonomous methodologies of science, philosophy and religion, of descriptive, normative and interpretive endeavors, but would integrate them axiologically.
What would intentional evolution address? Nothing less than creed, cult, code and community (institutionalized), which are deconstructible, as semiotic realities ordered toward truth, beauty, goodness and unity, which are not deconstructible. How would it address them? Through the amplification of epistemic risks as ordered toward the augmentation of human value-realizations.
Less abstractly and more concretely, how does one amplify epistemic risks? Understanding yields to faith, memory to hope, will to love and alienation to community.
More programatically, what route do I advocate? A Radical Emergence, rooted in the orthopathos and orthodoxy of tradition, as articulated and valued by some in the Radical Orthodoxy movement, and open to the orthopraxes and orthocommunio of the future, as articulated and valued by some in the Emerging Church conversation.
Specifically, one efficacious route to ecclesial and personal transformation is the surrender to the contemplative stance, the 3rd Eye seeing, of nonduality, which is what http://christiannonduality.com/ is all about.
Update on 06 Sept 2009 -See Tom Roberts “In Search of the Emerging Church” the contemplative tradition grounds emerging Christianity
Emerging Church Pillars:
I orthodoxy = honest Jesus scholarship
II orthopraxy = peace & social justice
III orthopathy = contemplative tradition, nonduality
IV orthocommunio = noninstitutional vehicles (complementary & happily on the side)
There are rather clear archetypal themes playing out in our cosmologies and axiologies, likely related to brain development and individuation processes.
A cosmology engages mostly our left-brain (thinking function of the left frontal cortex & sensing function of the left posterior convexity) as the normative and descriptive aspects of value-realization alternately establish and defend boundaries; we encounter the King-Queen and Warrior-Maiden with their light and dark (shadow) attributes as expressed in the journeys of the spirit and the body, primarily through a language of ascent.
An axiology engages mostly our right-brain (intuiting function of the right frontal cortex & feeling function of the right posterior convexity) as the interpretive and evaluative aspects of value-realization alternately negotiate (e.g. reconciliation of opposites, harnessing the power of paradox) and transcend boundaries; we encounter the Crone-Magician and Mother-Lover with their light and dark attributes as expressed in the journeys of the soul and the other (Thou), primarily through a language of descent.
Our propositional cosmologies and participatory axiologies seem to best foster transformation when, beyond our passive reception of them as stories about others, we actively engage the archetypal energies of their mythic dimensions with a contemplation ordered toward action, and also, when in addition to our rather natural expectations, they include 1) a priestly voice that sings of the intrinsic beauty to be celebrated in seemingly repugnant realities 2) a prophetic voice that is robustly self-critical when speaking the truth 3) a kingly voice that articulates a bias for the bottom, expressing both a privileging of the marginalized and a principle of subsidiarity when preserving goodness 4) a motherly voice that, seeing and calling all as her children, draws every person into her circle of compassion and mercy with no trace of exclusion, only a vision of unity.
In Economics at the Jesus Creed: Michael Kruse 6 today’s discussion asks What is wealth?
Kruse clarifies: I’m asking that since economic value of goods and labor is determined by utility, yet as Christians we know there is more than economic value in life, what should be our response.
These issues are framed up and explained very well.
In my own tradition, we affirm a metaphysical realism (we can descriptively adduce enough of what has been given, what is, to realize life’s most important values) and a moral realism (we can normatively reason from an is to an ought, from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from what’s given to what’s normative, from fact to value). More and more, however, we have moved from the apodictic certainties of an a prioristic rationalism to the more provisional closures of a contrite fallibilism.
While we recognize such distinctions as between deontological, teleological, aretaic, contractarian, utilitarian, pragmatic and consequentialistic approaches to moral realities, such as between real and apparent goods, lesser and higher goods, extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, we also affirm a political realism, which recognizes our radical human finitude as we practice the art of the possible, politics. From a metaphysical perspective, ontology, in many ways, remains highly speculative. It follows then that, morally, our deontology, in many cases, will remain somewhat tentative. This is to acknowledge that our journey from is to ought, given to normative, will often be more than a tad problematical. One response has thus been pastoral sensitivity.
In matters of war and peace, this pastoral sensitivity can simultaneously affirm both pacifism and just war principles as acceptable responses to Gospel imperatives. The just war tradition represents an accommodation to the universal human condition. On smaller scales, such as in our families and religious communities, from each according to their ability and to each according to their need has worked well. On larger scales, this communal approach breaks down. What we sanction in our social encyclicals is carefully crafted to accommodate our radical human finitude while advocating Gospel imperatives. Such accommodations are strategic and represent a negotiation of seemingly intractable political realities and not, rather, a negotiation of religious realities.
When we do take recourse in the pragmatic, we do so strategically, not philosophically. Sometimes, we take strategic recourse in the pragmatic, theoretically, because it is truth-indicative and thus increases our confidence in a proposition probabilistically. Sometimes, we take strategic recourse in the pragmatic, practically, not because we are negotiating our principles but because we are negotiating difficult social, economic, political and cultural realities.
Below, I am archiving my contribution to the above-referenced BeliefNet thread:
This is an excellent discussion, well-framed and explained.
I would like to introduce a distinction that seems to be in play here. Pragmatic approaches can superficially resemble each other, strategically, even when coming from widely different perspectives, philosophically.
As Christians, our interpretive stance toward reality presupposes both metaphysical and moral realisms. Oversimplified, we do believe that one can journey from an is to an ought, a fact to a value, the given to the normative, the descriptive to the prescriptive. While our descriptions of reality are problematical because we are radically finite, while we in no way fully comprehend reality, we do know enough through our partial apprehension of reality to derive from it significant values in terms of truth, beauty, goodness and unity. Still, because of our radical finitude, we must be concerned also with the art of the possible, the political, and this calls for a political realism, which takes into account what can be some rather harsh and seemingly intractable social, economic, political and cultural realities.
In my RC tradition, our social encyclicals pay heed to metaphysical, moral and political realisms. When we do take a “pragmatic turn,” we do so strategically and not philosophically. For the Christian, while the pragmatic can serve as a “test” of truth, never is it considered a “theory” of truth; while it can serve as a “strategy,” never does it serve as a “principle.” Theoretically, if the pragmatic is truth-indicative, then, strategically, it can increase our confidence in a proposition probabilistically even if it is not otherwise truth-conducive. Practically, if we encounter difficult socioeconomic and political realities, then, strategically, we can defensibly take recourse in pragmatic solutions as we try to successfully negotiate these realities, partially advancing our Gospel cause, without in any way negotiating our principles.
What I am suggesting is that there can be a superficial resemblance between our Christian responses and otherwise secular approaches as we accommodate ourselves to difficult social, economic, political and cultural realities while, at the same time, trying to permeate and improve the temporal order with our eternal perspective. As many grapple with our somewhat universal human condition and turn to the pragmatic, philosophically, Christians will often seek recourse in the pragmatic, also, but only strategically. Our response can thus be distinguished as one of pastoral sensitivity and not a worldly capitulation. Thus it is, for example, that in matters of war and peace, this pastoral sensitivity can simultaneously affirm both pacifism and just war principles as acceptable responses to Gospel imperatives. Thus it is that, in our families and religious communities, we can affirm an approach that says “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” even as we recognize that, on larger scales, this communal approach rapidly breaks down. This break down requires a pastoral sensitivity via a strategic accommodation, which should not be confused with a philosophical negotiation.
While there may very well be certain “pragmatic” prescriptions that seem to inhere in Michael’s descriptions of certain social and economic realities, from the interpretive stance of our Christian worldview, such pragmatic responses need not be considered philosophical capitulations but, instead, can be viewed as strategic accommodations. Such accommodations are born of our radical human finitude and articulated by a pastoral sensitivity, as situated in metaphysical (critical), moral and political realisms. These realisms operate best under ideal circumstances and, all things being equal, provide our proper bias positions and default responses (like subsidiarity & pacifism). Our circumstances are seldom ideal and, unfortunately, all things are decidedly not equal.
What we all do in response may look exactly the same; why we do it may drastically differ. How, then, do we differentiate our Gospel-brand in the marketplace of ideas? For one thing, we should articulate our principles and state why we advocate one approach versus another. For another, at our earliest opportunity, circumstances permitting and resources affording, we should move assertively to change strategies in an effort to conform more and more to our Gospel-ideals as salt for the earth and light for the world.
Tweets
© 2010 christiannonduality.com Blog is Proudly Powered By WordPress | Theme by The Cloisters
