Pastor Mike II

 

                Taking his stand on Timothy 2-5 Pastor Mike does not believe in ‘mediators’ such as saints or the Mother of God. As I said in my previous piece I have no problem with this. I must note, however, that any group that splits from another over finite mediators will soon enough split within itself over finite mediators. Islam is THE religion most committed to the unicity of God. A Muslim would almost certainly say to Pastor Mike that he puts a finite individual, Jesus, between humans and God. He would almost certainly object that Pastor Mike is not radical enough in his submission to the one true God because he associates God, in his thoughts and prayers, with a ‘son’ or second principle. In fact, if the Protestant Pastor Mike REALLY wants to be rigorous about putting the soul in the most direct ‘unmediated’ relation to God he should consider that he has, in fact, been outflanked on that front. Of course Pastor Mike will emphasize the identity of Jesus with God and appeal to the classical Christian notions of the Trinity and incarnation. God works uniquely IN Jesus such that I come to God by his mediation. Of course saying this exposes him to objections from the other side. If we CAN have A mediator why not more? God is sovereign and if he can work through the humanity of Jesus then Jesus, presumably, can also work through those he dwells in such as his saints or his mother. If you can have mediation then you can have mediated mediation. This is not just a tension in Christianity. Those secret masters of theological discourse the Neo-Platonists confronted the same issue. Do we simplify the spiritual hierarchy or ramify it? Thus, we have Porphyry who (it seems-depending on authenticating certain texts) radically simplified the intelligible world. We have Proclus who aggressively expanded it. These trends play out in Christian theology in the work of Augustine on the one side and Dionysius on the other. Because of this occluded historical determination I no longer think the 17th century categories in which the ‘confessions’ define their differences  are adequate to history. There are more primal encounters that need to be understood before we even begin to discuss things like the Mother of God or infused righteousness. This is true in the Islamic tradition too because, in spite of the rigor of the Koran, saints and chains of mediators show up there too, particularly in the heavily Neo-Platonized Ismaili tradition. Plus, to address the elephant in this particular room, a significant percentage of people in Pastor Mike’s own evangelical community regard the former POTUS Donald J. Trump as vessel though whom the blessings of God flow to the nation. Some identify loving Jesus with loving Trump. Trump is the means through which their loyalty to Jesus is expressed. Divine favor flows down to us through Trump and our love to God flows upward through him. Others who do not seem to believe this have no problem keeping company with those who do (so much for ‘protesting’). This is as clear an instance of religious mediation as I know and if even ultra-protestants can’t do without finite mediators I’m not sure where that leaves the rest of us.    

        

 

Comments

  1. Bernard N. WillsJune 15, 2021 at 6:40 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VJXF87VsM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bernard N. WillsJune 15, 2021 at 6:41 AM

    A pastor who says absolutely explicitly that trump is a mediator

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Suspicious: The Hermeneutic of Paranoia

  Religions, mythologies, ontologies, aesthetic movements, revolutions social or scientific, philosophical arguments and political institutions are all central for the program I teach in at Grenfell Campus (Interdisciplinary Humanities). These are what we study and we study them on the assumption (which I have rarely known to be defeated) that they repay close and serious examination. This means we proceed on the opposite basis to what many people seem to think is an educated attitude to the world. I refer here to what I have previously written about the hermeneutic of paranoia. This is the popular attitude that the purpose of education is not appreciation of the complexity of human culture but rather the rote ‘debunking’ of ‘claims’. For this view culture is all ‘bullshit’. Education, as we practice it, is ‘indoctrination’ or ‘brainwashing’. In the popular mind this attitude is what is thought of as ‘bold’ or ‘iconoclastic’ and is the attitude of ‘free-thinkers’. This is because cultu
Read more

Liar!

            We currently live in the throes of what I call a hermeneutic of paranoia or what a friend of mine has referred to as ‘malignant skepticism’. As educators, of course, we want to teach people to be skeptical, but it seems that something has gone seriously awry in this project. The skepticism we have sought to engender has, seemingly, consumed all standards of discourse and allowed conspiratorial, dangerous nonsense to proliferate. Skepticism has, seemingly, fulfilled the worst fears of critics of relativism and dissolved the very reason and public order on which a culture of intelligent critique rests. Worse, any return to older forms of dogmatism, whether religious or scientific, seems clumsy and forced, hopelessly compromised or even cringingly naïve. We can all see the effects of saying God, reason, or science in a louder voice to be null and, indeed, apt to breed their own kind of extremism. The result of all this is a world where greats swathes of people have lost any se
Read more

Cranks III

  In my last piece I alluded to a kind of crankiness that perhaps deserves more comment. This is the crankiness exhibited by scientists who comment on matters outside the domain of the sciences whether these be philosophical, religious or historical. The interventions of scientists in these domains are, almost without exception, cranky and it is useful to investigate why. What makes a scientist comment on these subjects in spite of a manifest unfitness to do so? Why do we need physicists commenting on the historicity of Jesus or chemists lecturing on epistemology or archeology? Why do we need the thoughts of ethologists on ‘poetry’ or of nuclear engineers on the ontological argument? Of course, we do not need such things at all yet specialists in THESE areas are deeply, existentially convinced we do. The first thing we must note is that ALL of these people deeply and correctly resent the intrusion of amateurs in THEIR domains. Yet at the same time they are incapable of exercising the s
Read more