1. Sorting Truth Claims
Whether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoetic
narrative
Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its context
within the whole without doing violence to its integrity?
rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenched from its
context in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation?
And the general default stance would be that most truth claims
should have some interreligious, intercultural significance as
human beings are, for the most part, vis a vis the human
condition, similarly situated and, furthermore
Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claims
are not going to be inextricably bound within or to systematic
formulae because they are otherwise ordinarily going to be
related as individual strands of cable that collectively
impart strength and resilience one to the other in a way that
is much more informal. And the distinction in play, here, is
that between foundational and nonfoundational epistemologies,
between deductive reasoning from a priori, apodictic
propositions and a form of reasoning that otherwise cycles
through abductive and inductive inferences in a cumulative
case-like approach. Further, one must consider the distinction
between propositional claims and nonpropositional posits.
As one moves within and across various communities of valuerealizers, one must consider the nature of the concepts being
employed vis a vis to what extent such concepts enjoy
theoretic (negotiated), heuristic (still-in-negotiation),
dogmatic (non-negotiated) or semiotic (non-negotiable) status.
One must further distinguish between articulations of any
given theory of truth (correspondence & congruence) versus a
proposal for a test of truth (coherence, consilience &
consonance)
next between nomological (descriptive/interpretive) &
axiological (normative/evaluative) truth claims
and then further distinguish between prudential
(moral/practical) norms and relational norms
(unitary/unitive), the latter which
foster realizations of absolute unitary being and/or
intersubjective unitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to be
sure, but both
from which solidarity and compassion seem to inevitably ensue?
and which have profound existential import?
The relational norms (ceremonial, liturgical, ascetical &
mystical) may, perhaps, be the most interesting when they lead
to
phenomenal experiences that do not so much lend themselves to
1

2. phenomenological descriptions (much less
metaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwise
bring about a practitioner's affective attunement with reality
vis a vis how friendly and safe it is notwithstanding all
appearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfect
love driving out all fear)?
There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims that
engages our participatory imaginations more than our
conceptual mapmaking?
This is not to say that empirical, logical, moral and
practical propositions are unimportant, only to realize that
'marital propositions' are far more 'engaging' and meaninggiving, inviting what I like to call an existentialdisjunctive: "I am going to live as if She loves me." And when
so many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ... perhaps
truth will come flying in on the wings of beauty & goodness?
as it is not merely informative but robustly performative,
even transformative?
Our existential responses can be mapped along either the axis
of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles) or the axis
of codependency (a/pathetic poles) based on their frequency
and amplitude, revealing behavior to be existential or
neurotic, life-giving and relationship-enhancing or their
opposite.
Distinctions & Neologisms
pansemioentheism
pneumatological consensus (the secular as)
nomological vs axiological trut claims
prudential vs relational norms
unitary vs unitive
descriptive sciences
evaluative cultures
normative philosophies
interpretive religions
theoretic concept
semiotic concept
heuristic concept
dogmatic concept
intraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)
intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)
intrasubjective integrity
interobjective indeterminacy
simple phenomenal experience
vague phenomenological concepts
robust ontological descriptions
2

3. risk management, both attenuation & amplification, ordered
toward the augmentation of
value-realization
value-realizations as
intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards
end-product vs by-product
axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)
axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)
theoretical theological capitulation
practical pastoral accommodation
universal ethical norms of justice & ordinary virtue (morality
as end-product)
Christian unitive norms of love & extraordinary virtue
(morality as by-product)
A Pneumatological Consensus?
In a pluralistic country, might we perhaps discern how much,
on the whole, its people cooperate with the Spirit?
Might we observe how well its:
1) culture sanctifies
2) history orients
3) society empowers
4) economy heals &
5) politics save ----------- its people?
Might the secular there manifest, for better or worse, a
"pneumatological consensus" with its implicit theology
(sanctifying),
eschatology (orienting), ecclesiology (empowering),
sacramentology (healing) & soteriology (saving)?
Of course, we are talking about proleptic (anticipatory)
realizations of Kingdom values that are yet unfolding toward a
future fullness.
This would clearly differ from any overly dialectical
perspective that would essentially run counter to a robustly
incarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all of
reality, even while recognizing significant differences in any
degree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures to
cooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor
formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (known
to God alone).
Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realism
that would draw too sharp a distinction between the
eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel
imperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?
Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharply
distinguish between our personal vocations and political
3

4. statecraft? For example, coercion there but not here?
Or that would suggest so-called dispensational distinctions?
For example, signs & wonders then but not now, there but not
here)?
And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel's
robustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy with
God and others) and general revelation's merely moral norms
(how to live in harmony with God, others, creation & self,
pursuing what's good and right, avoiding what's evil and
wrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, an
end-product of the latter, necessary in any case.
Because of our radical human finitude and sinfulness
(personal, social & institutional), any sanctioned departures
from these unitive norms would represent, then, no theoretical
theological capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather,
practical pastoral accommodations (for example, regarding any
use of coercive
violence).
At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any essentially
moral norms, which are otherwise transparent to human reason
without the benefit of special revelation(s) - differentiate
the Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a suitable means
to the ends of justice but its unitive aims clearly exceed
those, even breaking open a new category.
The whole point of my exploration is that we might more
broadly conceive
just when and where and in whom we might encounter the Spirit!
The unitive vs moral
norm distinction moreso differentiates the Old & New
Testaments, as I see it. Keep in mind,
though, that 'good people doing good things for good reasons'
characterizes moral norms.
Our unitive norms entail a striving for loving intimacy,
relating as lovers. So, what I am
saying is that morality is not what separates the Gospel
messages from other messages b/c
anyone can do morality, which is transparent to human reason
without the benefit of
special revelation, which is why we see good people doing good
things for good reasons
everywhere. The Good News tells us that we are loved beyond
imagining by a God, Who
wants us to relate to Him as Daddy, or, if one prefers, as
Betrothed.
To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguished
from those practices of the East
that are ordered toward gifting one with an experience of
absolute unitary being, which I
consider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our great
causal connectedness, reality's
immense solidarity. The unitive striving gifts us with an
4

5. intersubjective, interpersonal
intimacy. Both lead to compassion.
The thrust is that the Spirit just might be at work in every history, every culture, every society, every economy
and every political effort,
albeit in varying degrees. And the efficacies of the Spirit
are being realized not just in the
past or future but now, not just here and here but there and
there. And that the Spirit's
invitation takes us -- not without but -- way beyond mere
moral & practical concerns to
robustly relational concerns.
What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance toward
reality involves relational
values & relationships, evaluative posits of various types
(truth, beauty, goodness,
freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid or
acquire dis/values) and
descriptive accounts (what is that?).
To some extent, we can roughly map these endeavors as science
(descriptive-truth),
philosophy (normative-goodness) and culture (evaluativebeauty). Religion is an interpretive
stance that takes us meta- via creed (truth), cult-ivation
(beauty), code (goodness) and
community (relational).
The Spirit (based on Lukan Christology, too) orients,
sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves
us and these functions are manifest in our churches,
respectively, via eschatology, theology,
ecclesiology, sacrament and soteriology, mapping roughly over
an otherwise, again
respectively, secular history, culture, society, economy &
body politic.
More commonly, we see the terms orthodoxy (truth), orthopathy
(beauty), orthopraxy
(goodness) and orthocommunio (community), as applied to our
needs for believing,
desiring, behaving and belonging.
A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes of
formative
spirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspects
as integral, would accord a
certain primacy to belonging, which then forms our desires,
which then elicit our behaviors
which will nurture our interpretive stance or beliefs. And
these beliefs engage our
participatory imagination way more than our propositional
cognition, being way more
performative than informative, much more about practical
living than theoretical
5

6. speculation.
This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenant
mindset, which certainly values
belonging, desiring, behaving and believing but seems to
accord a primacy to believe this
and behave like that and then you can belong (and what's a
desire?).
What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task. We
are unpacking our densely
packed jargonistic prose. There is nothing magical about
jargon but it is an eminently useful
tool of any trade that consists, usually, of a shorthand that
is highly nuanced, hence saving
time and space. When it is used, no problem, but it needs
translating when being taken to a
different audience. And that's all that was about. And this is
aside from any discussion of
ecclesiology or models of church, which, again, I don't see as
mutually exclusive. I do see a
role for experts in descriptive, normative and theological
sciences but that doesn't drive my
pneumatology or view of the Spirit at work in the world. We do
want to collaboratively
pursue the most nearly perfect articulation of truth in
creeds/myths, the most nearly
perfect celebrations of beauty in cult/liturgy, the most
nearly perfect preservation of the
good in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoyment of
fellowship in community and
this will require our fostering of Lonergan's conversions:
intellectual, affective, moral,
sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimal
value-realization. In that, there are
diverse ministries but one mission.
I call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely because
I choose to prescind
from any robustly metaphysical descriptions (an ontology) to a
more vague
phenomenological perspective, which categorizes our
experiences of God in relational
terms based on our intuitions, evaluations and performative
responses that ensue in the
wake of these experiences. Those categories include 1)
intraobjective identity – regarding
our vague intuitions of an absolute unitary being 2) –
intersubjective intimacy – regarding
our unitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity – think of
Lonergan’s conversions &
formative spirituality and 4) interobjective indeterminacy –
which hints at the
methodological constraints and putative ontological occulting
that thwart natural
theological inquiry, as some claim in-principle (which is too
strong a position to defend
6

7. philosophically) and as I acknowledge (instead for all
practical purposes) at least, at this
stage of humankind’s sojourn.
So, a suitably nuanced panentheism is not an ontology or
metaphysic or natural theology
but, instead, a theology of nature, which employs metaphor,
analogy, myth, koan, song and
dance. It does not aspire to describe what remains
indescribable, to say more than we can
possibly know, does not attempt to prove too much or to tell
untellable stories. The abovecategories
certainly have ontological implications (which get
analytically frustrated) that
might flow from those distinct phenomenological categories of
our God-experience but they
honor, with reverent silence and respectful apophasis, the
mysterium tremendum et
fascinans. Our panentheism is then saying much more about the
value-realizations that
grow out of our God-encounters but much less about causal
joints and divine mechanics.
We affirm THAT values are being realized from experiences
without specifying HOW.
It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures,
nowadays, we know better
than to use a modal ontology of possible, actual and necessary
but now substitute
“probable” for necessary. Confronted with epistemic
indeterminacy and ontological
vagueness in navigating proximate reality, how much more folly
we would engage when
attempting to describe ultimate reality? Still, everywhere in
reality, necessity suggest itself
even as, nowhere in reality, have we found it physically
instantiated. Charles Sanders Peirce
speaks of our abduction of the Ens Necessarium and I resonate
with that inference, weak
though it may be. I precisely make the same appeal to the
Jewish intuition of God’s
shrinking to make room for reality and my own theology of
nature then sees emergent
reality participating in various degrees of semiotic freedom
in an ontological-like hierarchy
(crowned by the imago Dei).
So, I don’t embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontology
of proodos, mone and
epistrophe as a description of metaphysical reality, much less
God ad intra or ad extra in a
natural theology. But I do believe it is enormously helpful to
honor and thereby categorize
the many human phenomenal experiences of God that ensue from
our subjunctive (as if)
encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in a
theology of nature that is self-aware
of its metaphorical, mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed
7

8. by suitable kataphatic,
apophatic and relational predication and generally revealed.
The Trinity and God’s relational
nature is specially revealed as Love, exceeding anything we
could otherwise infer
empirically, logically, practically or morally from nature.
At least this is my attempt to grapple with the same issues.
Systematic Theology?
Sometimes, to me, it feels like systematic theology is an
oxymoron, practical theology is a redundancy and natural
theology is a fool's errand. And where natural theology is
concerned, I'm talking about the kind that gets all
metaphysical using somebody's pet root metaphor, be that being
or substance or process or social-relational or flavah du
jour. Our realization of life's values just seems a lot more
informal, a lot messier, if you will, than all of the
otherwise neat formulas that the theo-wonks are fashioning
with the aim of shoehorning creation & Creator into some One
SiZe FiTs AlL Gospel sandals.
But a theology of nature that begins within the faith and
spontaneously breaks into lyric and psalm and myth and koan
and song and poem with metaphors cascading and collapsing --engenders fascination and mystery, awakens desires and
longings, fosters communal celebrations and forms ecological
sensibilities, reinforcing how everything belongs. In this
belonging our desires are formed such that compassionate
behaviors naturally ensue. What we call our beliefs, then, are
more so interpretations, less so descriptions, what we might
call existential disjunctives that suggest: if we live as if
... then thus and such! So, we participate imaginatively by
celebrating with God, other, world and self as if we all
really belonged to one another in solidarity and compassionate
interactions then ensue toward others and our environment.
Finally, since all interpretive approaches are inescapably
tautological and all metaphors eventually collapse, one way
science can enhance our understanding of God's word and
creation is by providing more accurate descriptions for our
interpretations such that our metaphors are more robust (last
longer before collapsing - as we mine their meanings) and our
tautologies are more taut (tautologies do not provide new info
but that doesn't mean they are not true or that all are
equally true; there are criteria for how well they "fit"
reality).
The Gospel Brand
What differentiates the Gospel brand is an interpretation of
reality as both created &
friendlier than we could ever imagine. Authentic friendship,
however, transcends the need
for extrinsic rewards (what's in it for me?) and enjoys the
robustly relational intrinsic
8

9. rewards (truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, trust, love) that
are ends unto themselves, their
own reward, in no need of apology or explanation.
Now, "to transcend" does not mean to "go without" but, rather,
"beyond." Still, for some, it
might invite a re-EMPHASIS?
Another implication is that religion's core mission is to
interpret reality and not to otherwise
describe, norm or even evaluate it, all activities (e.g.
science & moral reasoning) that are
already transparent to human reason. This is not to suggest
that it would not have moral
implications for, if we act as if we really believe the Good
News, we will then exceed the
demands of justice!
An Existential Disjunctive - to live as if
Christian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretive
stance (Christology/Pneumatology),
has normative implications. Beyond our practical and moral
norms with their extrinsic
rewards, it introduces a new category of norms, the unitive,
which are intrinsically
rewarding. These unitive norms provide suitable means for
moral ends but their aim
transcends our practical and moral concerns.
As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our
imaginative participation in an intimate
relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historical
perspective eschatologically,
sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically, empowering
our societal institutions
ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentally
and saving our political
endeavors soteriologically. And what singular reality orients,
sanctifies, empowers, heals
and saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The
norms of Christian love foster
our realization of solidarity with all of reality.
As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our
imaginative participation in an intimate
relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historical
perspective eschatologically,
sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically, empowering
our societal institutions
ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentally
and saving our political
endeavors soteriologically. And what singular reality orients,
sanctifies, empowers, heals
and saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The
norms of Christian love foster
our realization of solidarity with all of reality.
9

10. Communal Discernment
communal discernment - my favorite redundancy, and it applies
in science, philosophy & religion b/c, in my approach, at
least, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology (contra
any notion of, for example, a religious epistemology vs other
types). This is not to say that there is no such phenomenal
experience as "hearing from God" but, even then, the
individual will be processing (chewing & digesting) it through
(self-critical) lenses provided during formation in community
& the fruits of same (or lack thereof) are subject to the
prudential & theological judgments of community (another
source transcendent of one's mere self). We don't want to deny
signs & wonders, which may be proleptic realizations of what
may some day be an eschatological fullness but we want to
resist the tendency to sensationalize them in a way that
devalues the splendor of the ordinary and the stupefaction we
should all be experiencing in every waking (and dreaming)
moment at the ... the ... the ...
Church Polity
Beyond the difficult to pin down empirical data re: the exact
nature, rates, causes & handling of abuse incidents, in one
denomination vs another (and some fairly good studies are
emerging even as some fairly dubious & facile analyses
persist), there is a related issue in play re: church polity
vis a vis any question re: a grassroots 'people's
reform' of the RCC.
It may be that, in theory, the sense of the faithful (sensus
fidelium) or "what has been received & practiced by the
faithful" is what guides the Teaching Office (magisterium) but
it seems pretty obvious to me that, in practice, this process
has been seriously flawed.
Apparently, this is less the case with the methodologies
employed in formulating & articulating social teachings even
as it has clearly been the case where church disciplines (e.g.
celibacy, women's ordination), liturgical practices (e.g. open
communion, sacramental reception by divorced & remarried) and
moral doctrines (e.g. contraception, homoerotic behavior) are
concerned. Catholic social teaching has experienced three
rather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic social
teaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shifts
in emphasis from: 1) classicism to historical consciousness 2)
natural law to personalism and 3) legalism to relationalityresponsibility.
This methodological shift implicitly invites &
fosters the collegial participation of lay experts &
commissions (iow, us anawim - of both genders, even), social &
political scientists, academic theologians and so on in a much
broader & deeper consultative, active-listening process.
The good news, then, is that the seeds of reform are there for
the planting if only the church could cross-pollinate its
10

11. seminal social doctrine cultivation and plant and nurture them
in the furrows of its church discipline, liturgical practice &
moral doctrine rows. This will require pulling the weeds of
patriarchalism, hierarchicalism, clericalism, sexism and so on
from those rows as has been done on the others. Or, to change
metaphors, one has reason to hope that the seismic shifts that
have already taken place already, to the edification of the
faithful and the world community writ large, will cause some
tectonic reshuffling as their aftershocks emanate out from
that epicenter.
There are roles to play, then, in ongoing institutional reform
and there are end-arounds, too, via non-institutional vehicles
(not mutually exclusive). In some sense, it seems to me that
the hierarchicalism & clericalism is not just a top-down
oppression but that it reflects where so much of the laity
remains. We don't want to over-identify THE church with either
its institutional form or its clerical leadership but we
cannot deny that their re-formation and ongoing transformation
would help advance the Kingdom. A significant but
marginalized minority continues to voice prophetic protest and
live in loyal dissent; others change denominations or employ
non-institutional vehicles. Whatever the case, a denomination
is but a means and not the end, thank God.
The Role of Government
In an ideal world, there would be no coercion needed at all.
Government is a necessary evil because we are fallible,
flawed, finite. Political statecraft, especially at the
federal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. To
try to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralistic
society, isn't workable and quickly devolves into the
counterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroaches
on personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."
The government, then, is to be about the administration of
justice, leaving the demands of charity to individual
initiatives. Even what have traditionally been called
"entitlement" programs are not really in place to administer
mercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public order
b/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,
society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos and
disorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptly
named "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.
I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their own
needs b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and other
at-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remain
out of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collective
resources of our population are so scarce that maybe even all
of our population's basic needs might not be met by them. The
nuance is that I am saying that the government is in no
position to commandeer those resources that we, thru our
selfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing to
freely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitable
initiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the
11

12. problem, I'm afraid.
The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & not
used to incentivize the allocation of private capital. They
can give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd like
per the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hope
they seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &
not income & never both.
In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks for
Big Oil, the incentives should be repealed for all
manufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.
To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenue
enhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter must
come from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.
Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c those
will always exceed our available governmental resources, which
must be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needs
require, then, some tragic triage decisions.
Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,
no eggs!
12