The New Mysticism
by Vlad Todor
Karen Armstrong has a new book out, A Case for God. No, I haven’t read the book. But I’m going to critique it anyway, justified by the fact that I’m familiar with her thinking, I heard her interviewed about it on NPR, and I read an excerpt of it. But that doesn’t really matter. I’ve not heard whatever pop sensation is at the top of the music charts, but I can already tell you it’s bad.
There is a strain of theology that is little more than humanism trying to be transcendent. There are no texts to be burdened with, no propositions to be understood, and few absolute moral imperatives. This makes it wonderfully ecumenical since any religion properly thinned out can affirm it. From the standpoint of this existentialist theology, all religions are talking about the same thing, just using different metaphors. Even God is thinned out, removed of personhood, and completely inoffensive. He is not a “he,” because that implies a personal, sexed, limited being, whereas God could be nothing less than Being itself, so ineffable that the best thing a theologian can do is sit in silence.
What’s particularly interesting about this book is that it looks like a bit of offense from a rather defensive religious position. The appeal of this kind of thinking is that it sidesteps the charging bull of criticism leveled at all religious traditions, but particularly Christianity, since the Enlightenment. All of the nice parts of a religion, such as “do unto others…”, are kept, and all of the less easily defensible parts are disavowed. The difficulty then becomes the fact that once you so rob religion of its content, there is not much to talk about: you can’t refute it, but you can hardly recommend it either. Armstrong is trying to do just that. She wants to say that there really is a role for religion in this scientific age, even though what she offers is so unspecified that it’s manifest equally in ancient cave paintings and opera.
In and of itself, not so bad. But it looks like she rewrites a bit of history in her image to get there. I’ll return to that if I get a closer look at the book.
I wonder, hasn't all of Christianity to one degree or another embraced the idea of keeping the nice parts, while dropping the less easily defensible?
Very few if any of us practice Christianity the way we did when the words were new, or even when the Bible as a collection of books was new. Is this change in practice robbing religion of its content, or just acknowledging that each stage of religious growth has its own context?
I like to feel that there's plenty to talk about in that conversation, because religion surely can't stay static when its central figure is infinite.
No religion is ever truly static, individually or corporately. I don't begrudge change, just certain directions, I suppose. On keeping the nice parts, yes, you're right. Even beyond that, the less seemly parts may be retained, but pushed to the side in a re-oriented theology. There's a lot to say about that, too.
Yea I agree religions have been watered down to accomadate everyone so that god can be everything to anyone regardless of your moral fabric. I think this trend is mostly in our country where our population has become more and more diverse and institutions wanting to fill seats.
Your country is the US? To me it seems that religious conservativism is a bigger draw than liberalism, in part because of the psychology of rigorous dogma and the straight answers of conservative churches. It's the more liberal denominations that are bleeding parishioners. If the watering down is part of a strategy to fill seats, I don't think it's working. But I would be interested in your perspective if you see things differently.
i agree conservatism is a bigger draw, from rush limbauugh to bill oreilly, than have a bigger following than any liberal counterpart but i still think people water down religion to accomodate as many as possible even though like you said it isnt working..
I was about to read your post on Karen Armstrong. I stopped at the 1st paragraph, but I’m going to critique your post anyway, justified by the fact that I’m familiar with you line of lazy thinking, I have no idea who you are, and I'm not going to read any info about you. But that doesn’t really matter. I’ve not heard whatever close minded sensation is at the top of the atheist charts, but I can already tell you it’s bad.
Uh, you do realize that Vlad is not anywhere close to being atheist, right? Besides that, he probably is one of the most open-minded people I know. He just hates it when Christianity is "watered down" to make it appeal to broader base. Christianity has to stand for SOMETHING, or as we've seen, so–called Christians will fall for anything.