Re-Enchant the World: Moving Towards a Metamodern Theology

I'm sharing writing here in a way I don't normally – to give you some insight into how I think about philosophy. It feels very vulnerable and really doesn't have anything to do with fundraising, so if this isn't your jam feel free to ignore it.

Rational Absolutism and Cultural Relativism

The Enlightenment signaled a period of rational rigor, seeking universal truths via Cartesian scientific investigation and logical scrutiny. It is now de rigeur to suggest that this movement "disenchanted" the Western world. Christian theology accepted the rationalist premise, relegating pre-Enlightenment ideas like embodied knowledge and ineffable spiritual encounters to the dustbin. It did so in part because Enlightenment thinking offered some groundwork for exploring the universal, but this modernist confidence excluded many realms of knowledge that we now hold dear. Only recently have the spiritual ideas of the (mostly) cloistered mysticists re-emerged.

Postmodernism after Nietzsche aimed and fired at the overarching narratives and hierarchies. Like Galileo’s science before, Nietzsche marks a central turning point of human thought, beginning a movement of deconstruction that left all Cartesian and Kantian thought crumbled in the ground, lying in state next to his famously dead God.  This postmodern approach also instilled a pervasive skepticism in society, rigorously dismantling cohesive senses of purpose or moral code on the way to the embrace of the will. A few stragglers like Kierkegaard bravely attempted to forge a way out of the existentialist snare, but such discussions became increasingly peripheral. Postmodernism’s critical examination and disassembling of the grand stories and universal assertions reframed the idea of God, religious practice, liturgy, and much of philosophy as a byproduct of cultural shaping. Thus we were forced to embrace a form of curiosity that questioned the unifying utility of ethics and meaning.

Dialectical Synthesis: The Oscillation

In response, enter metamodernism. Our hero(ine) emerges not as a rival framework, but as a dialectical amalgamation, navigating between Enlightenment rationalism and postmodern detangling to cultivate a nuanced understanding of complex phenomena.

Metamodernism operates within a dialectical fusion, allowing emergence from the competing tenets of modernity and postmodernity to yield a more intricate comprehension of various phenomena. This can be understood as a musical harmonization - with postmodernism playing a note and rationalism playing another one, metamodernism creates a chord. It is the gestalt of the postmodern and rational featureset. Within a metamodern landscape, sincerity pairs with irony, faith coexists with doubt, and absolutism emerges with relativism, all in a dynamic dance that enriches both interpretation and lived experience.

Metamodernism's notion of oscillation between varying poles—particularly those of modernist and postmodernist perspectives—isn't a simplistic pendular swing, but a multifaceted, dialectical interaction that allows for nuanced ways of understanding and engaging with reality. This oscillation serves as a cognitive and behavioral framework that amalgamates the strengths of multiple paradigms, aiming to both transcend and integrate their diverse contributions.

Often rooted in dialectical reasoning inspired by the Hegelian triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, this viewpoint positions modernism and postmodernism as opposing theses, while metamodernism seeks a higher synthesis. Rather than a static balance, this oscillation can be understood as a dynamic equilibrium, where the conflicting paradigms are in a continuous state of flux and adaptation. The equilibrium isn't merely a compromise but could represent a more elevated viewpoint capable of embracing multiple perspectives concurrently.

The oscillation can be situationally adaptive, enabling diverse attitudes or methodologies based on the context. In scientific endeavors, for instance, a modernist focus on empirical evidence may be prioritized, while interpersonal relationships might benefit from a postmodern approach that values relativism and emotional nuance.

Metamodernism also facilitates the stacking of perspectives, allowing one to function within a modernist paradigm for specific goals, while simultaneously maintaining a postmodern critique of those very aims. Human lives are governed by layers of identity, economics, theology, genders, etc. A metamodern philosophy allows for that full experience to be actionable as well as categorical.

Metamodernism most famously swings between irony and sincerity. Whereas postmodernism employs irony to dismantle overarching narratives, metamodernism utilizes irony for deconstruction but also leans on sincerity for the reassembly of meaningful stories. This oscillatory approach extends into cognitive and emotional realms, positioning rational thought and intuitive emotion not as adversaries, but as complementary instruments for comprehension and decision-making. One might imagine, for example, a prayer life of oscillation between the ‘knowing’ of discursive thought, and the ‘unknowing’ of contemplative insight. It engages in a dialectical synthesis that harmonizes the virtues of these contrasting frameworks. This dynamic balance is not a static compromise, but a continuously evolving, higher-order integration that accommodates a variety of viewpoints. The dialectic here is not a synthesis that negates its components but one that enriches each by its relation to the other. There is some danger, of course, in this enrichment. There is real risk of diluting the existential import of any single perspective. The 'either/or' must not be completely swallowed by the 'both/and,' lest we lose the capacity for genuine commitment and decision. That’s why we must speak of this work as an emergent property, and not merely synthesis. It must be greater than the sum of its parts.

Conceptualizing God in a Participatory Space

In this metamodern landscape, I suggest we envision God as a "dialogical reality"— finding a self-referential loop of action and participation that encompasses both individual and communal narratives, empirical findings, and spiritual epiphanies. It is a perpetual state of surrender and divine encounter that's not fixed but continually evolving. If God is a 'dialogical reality,' then faith becomes an ongoing dialogue rather than a monologue of assent or denial. Within this conceptual space, God serves as a participatory nexus where personal and collective stories, empirical data, and mystical insights coalesce. God is both wholly other and intimately close, the ground of being and beyond all being. This nexus is the fertile (living) ground where the soul's spark can flourish and interact with the Divine. God is a verb, the ineffable force that we can only know through unknowing, the very ground of being itself.

This is, incidentally, a circumstance in favor of the value of will itself. If God is a dialogical reality, then our participation has theological significance. Our actions and insights don't just reflect our human condition but also participate in the Divine life.

Emergent Community Wisdom

Of course, a system like this champions pluralism, not at the expense of each idea’s authenticity, but at understanding them as emerging from their individual parts into something more powerfully collective. It suggests a democratization of religious authority that shifts the center of spiritual wisdom from a single dogma to a collective intelligence shaped by communal dialogues, thereby enriching our communal experience of the divine. The notion of a 'democratization of religious authority' is intriguing yet fraught with danger. While it may alleviate the limitations of dogma, it also threatens to diminish the weight of individual responsibility. Pluralism mustn't become an excuse for avoiding existential commitment, for as soon as everyone is considered an authority, the very concept of authority—and thus accountability—is in peril. This proposition is also, of course, assuming a collective intelligence across the community that may not always be warranted. The collective intelligence is only as strong as its individual parts. If there are weaknesses or blind spots in the individual understandings, then these will be amplified in the collective. Moreover, not every opinion is created equal, and so a purely democratic approach must be wary of the pitfalls of ignorance or narrow-mindedness.

This metamodern outlook allows for diverse spiritual viewpoints and expressions to coexist. It supports a decentralization of religious authority, thereby enabling broader community participation and a wealth of perspectives in shaping spiritual tenets. Within this framework, collective wisdom emerges from community engagement, highlighting the significance of dialogic practices in enhancing our shared experience of the divine. This is why a metamodern conception of God is inclined to embrace democratic theologies that regard spiritual wisdom as arising not solely from an ecclesiastical elite, but from the collective experiential insights of the entire community.

This is also why we must have a filter—a means of discerning wisdom from mere opinion. That's where the wisdom of liturgy and discernment comes in, serving as a refining fire for the collective soul's insights. The discernment mechanisms must be in place to avoid the cacophony of unfettered democracy. The dissolution of a central authority can result in a proliferation of mimetic rivalries as everyone starts to view each other as equals—and potential obstacles.

Addressing Conflict in Pluralistic Perspectives

Metamodernism advocates for epistemic humility, recognizing that some facets of reality may currently elude understanding and that certain contradictions may not be readily reconcilable. Knowing our limits may be the greatest wisdom.

Unlike modernism or postmodernism, which aim to "resolve" the complexities of pluralism through singular truths or relativistic perspectives, metamodernism focuses on dialogical engagement. It offers awe and curiosity instead of solutions and advice.

It cultivates 'third spaces' that weave elements of conflicting viewpoints together. In this context, contradictions aren't eliminated but rather compartmentalized, permitted to coexist across diverse existential arenas.

Metamodernism does not primarily aim to "solve" the puzzle of pluralism, as either modernism or postmodernism might attempt through universal truths or relativized viewpoints. Instead, it values the act of understanding in itself. Understanding God—or any complex subject matter—requires a 'cloud of forgetting' where our preconceptions and judgments are momentarily suspended to allow for a fresh, more complex understanding to emerge.

Rooted in open, dialogical interaction, metamodernism creates a milieu where these divergent viewpoints can engage, thereby facilitating the emergence of 'synthetic views' that amalgamate aspects of opposing perspectives. The capacity to adopt varied perspectives for distinct facets of a multifaceted issue can itself serve as a form of "resolution” for those seeking such a thing.  

An Emergent God: Personal and Impersonal, Immanence and Transcendence

A metamodern God encapsulates both the personal, providing moral and relational scaffolding, and the impersonal, representing an all-encompassing, cosmic reality. This dual understanding enriches spiritual life, integrating the mystical oneness of immanence with the awe-inspiring 'otherness' of transcendence.  The personal aspect of God acknowledges the yearning for a relational deity, a source of moral guidance, and an object of devotion. The impersonal God aligns with the cosmological, unbounded entity that may not engage with human affairs or offer individual salvation. A God that is not a watchmaker, but is instead the energy stored up in the mainspring.

A metamodern conception of God integrates both immanence—being embedded within the world and its unfolding—and transcendence—existing beyond the world's limitations. This may be best understood through the apophatic and kataphatic traditions, where God is known both through negation and through affirmation.Such a framework rejuvenates the concept of God, portraying it neither as an objective entity subject to empirical validation nor as a mere illusion to be discarded, but as a multidimensional construct that harmonizes immanence and transcendence.

Approaching Rational Inquiry

Within a metamodern framework, rational inquiry isn't jettisoned but rather expanded upon. Rational discourse prepares the mind, making it fertile ground for the seeds of direct, mystical experience.

One could be involved in practices or projects that are inspired by seemingly contradictory paradigms without abandoning the value of rational inquiry. For instance, a person might engage in both scientific research and mystical spiritual practices, seeing each as offering valuable but different kinds of insight. In practical terms, metamodern oscillation manifests as a sort of "toolkit", where different methods, perspectives, or paradigms are applied pragmatically based on what is most useful or insightful for a given situation.

While modernism elevated rationality and empiricism as the primary means to grasp reality, its tendency towards reductionism often negated the numinous. Within a metamodern paradigm, rational inquiry remains important but is extended beyond reductionist boundaries. The metamodern approach is open to engaging with scientific paradigms, like cosmology or quantum mechanics, as potential pathways for contemplating the divine as the fundamental ground of being, thus unifying the rational and the transcendent.

Values in a Metamodern Paradigm

At the heart of metamodernism lie principles such as open dialogue, ethical interconnectedness, and the integration of transcendent and immanent realms. This paradigm embraces both emotional intricacy and epistemological authenticity, allowing for a multi-layered emotional terrain.

Certain values are likely to be particularly salient within this emerging paradigm. I suggest at least six:

1. The value of open, sincere conversation that seeks to understand, integrate, or transcend differing viewpoints is a central axiological component.
   
2. A commitment to grappling honestly with complexities, contradictions, and the limitations of one's own perspective, inviting ongoing refinement and evolution of thought. This is the essence of what it means to be a human, forever oscillating in-between.
3. A recognition of the deeply interconnected nature of existence and thus a commitment to ethical considerations that account for this interdependence.
   
4. An emphasis on the interconnectedness of the transcendent and immanent aspects of divinity or ultimate reality, reflecting a value for both universal principles and particular experiences.
   
5. Valuing personal and collective experiences of the 'numinous' or 'divine' as legitimate and important forms of knowledge and understanding.
   
6. Recognizing emotional facets of human experience, including doubt, hope, joy, and sorrow, are recognized as integral to the human condition and are given ethical and epistemological consideration. This is essential for understanding these complex cycles of desire and conflict, and for trying to transcend our destructive cycles.
   
   

Experiencing and Practicing Metamodern Spirituality

Traditional Christian rituals may undergo transformation to include elements that engage both the rational and emotional faculties, recognizing the value in both objective and subjective forms of knowing. This should start by broadening practices from both scientific inquiry (modern) and parallel mystical paths (traditional and postmodern) like the Buddhist, the Sufi, and the Kabbalist.

Rituals are no longer seen as fixed but are fluid in their expression, adaptive to the community's needs, and mindful of the particularities of context and culture. But unlike a purely postmodern experience, the historical ritual of the liturgy provides its own kind of mystical story.

Instead of deconstructing the tradition, we embrace it. This is because a metamodern spirituality leans into experiential, embodied practices that honor both reason and intuition. It hopes that rituals can become spaces where the ineffable can be encountered in silence, beyond the scope of human language. It acknowledges God as a multi-dimensional construct, immanent in the everyday world and transcendent beyond it. Rituals become adaptive, participatory experiences rather than automatic habits. In doing so, they create spaces for engaging deeply with paradoxes and complexities that are inherent in both the human condition and the divine.

Participants in metamodern spiritual practices experience a kind of "dialectical maturity," where opposing viewpoints are no longer stressful but are seen as opportunities for deeper understanding. The integration of rationality and spirituality provides a more fulfilling and comprehensive understanding of reality. The metamodern framework’s acknowledgment of irony alongside sincerity enables individuals to approach life’s challenges with a certain emotional depth. The ability to "hold" opposing emotional states (such as hope and despair) in oscillation leads to greater spiritual resilience.

The value placed on emotional authenticity leads to improved emotional health and more fulfilling interpersonal relationships, and the ability to perceive the “sacred” in the everyday, or the immanent, often leads to a phenomenological experience of the “re-enchantment” of the world, which can be deeply fulfilling. Those frame-shifting experiences are also the inspiration of direct, tangible action towards a more luminous world.

Drawing from the postmodern emphasis on subjectivity, metamodern spirituality holds dear to experiential, mystical encounters with the divine. Such experiences can be both personal and impersonal, immanent and transcendent. The role of the body is as a site of divine experience, recognizing spirituality as an embodied practice that engages all human faculties.

The approach encourages individuals to reconstruct their spiritual paths by embracing both the intellect and the intuitive, the individual and the collective, the immanent and the transcendent. It also encourages them to oscillate beyond the individual, and to see themselves as part of a wider historical and community context. We are radically free in ourselves, and radically whole in community.

Sacred texts emerge as both historical documents open to rational scrutiny and as living scriptures that can facilitate mystical experiences. This is not solo scriptura, nor is it universalism. It is holding certainty and awe hand-in-hand as you explore the patterns and hold fast the differences between traditions. Picasso and Warhol can be compared, but they are not the same. Both provide the opportunity for emergent meaning, but their differences should be embraced. God is one. God is not one.

The practice encourages inner dialogues that incorporate the objective and the subjective, the individual and the communal, the rational and the emotional. These practices would strive for an integration of multiple forms of knowledge—ranging from empirical to phenomenological to spiritual—thus transcending and including prior stages of understanding. This is why, as outlined above, a metamodern spiritual practice might emphasize becoming over being, understanding God or Ultimate Reality as an evolving process rather than a static entity. God is being itself, not what He is becoming.

In practice, metamodern spirituality might focus on embodied practices. It might incorporate the spiritual and scientific, allowing (for example) for modern therapies to integrate into confessional practice. It would emerge from spiritual traditions – when you already burn frankincense, it isn’t a far cry to imagine burning sage.

Challenging Questions of a Metamodern God

Seeing God as an evolving process presents philosophical challenges. It prompts us to re-evaluate static concepts like omnipotence and complicates the relationship between God and moral absolutes, inviting a re-examination of theodicies and the nature of divine causality. These are some of the questions I am still exploring.

Human language and thought are generally structured around static entities rather than processes. This makes it difficult to even talk about or understand God as a verb.

Seeing God as a verb or evolving entity would entail a radical re-interpretation or even contradiction of established sacred texts and dogmas. And yet, a God that evolves might be closer to describing the infinite and incomprehensible nature of God than any static concept.

Is God still all-powerful or all-knowing if God is also changing? If God is indeed the One from which all emanates, God is beyond change, yet encompasses all change.

Theodicies that aim to reconcile the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God with the existence of evil might have to be re-evaluated if God is seen as evolving or as a process, leading to ethical and existential quandaries.

If God is continuously evolving, what ensures the continuity of God’s identity? An evolving God makes it even harder to comprehend the divine through thought alone, making experiential 'knowing' all the more vital.

The notion of God as a process or evolving entity raises questions about divine causality. Can God both be a part of the process and the cause of the process? On the other hand, an evolving God could indeed offer a different perspective on the problem of evil, one that doesn't rely on static divine attributes. It could help explain why a perfect God allows imperfections to exist in the process of divine unfolding.

Many people turn to God for eternal truths or moral absolutes. If God is evolving, how can God provide this kind of moral guidance? If God is a process, then 'eternal truths' might not be static laws but could be core principles underlying the divine process. This would make them no less vital for moral or spiritual guidance, even if they are part of a dynamic reality.

Trapped in Cleverness

What a metamodern theology seeks to tease out might also be its undoing. By being too clever by half, the practice may become a clever intellectual exercise, and lose the mysterious ritual of personal transformation. To engage seriously in existence, the metamodern practitioner must take leaps of faith. They must make sincere commitments despite holding deep ironic sensibilities. We must find, not better answers, but the emergent questions that lead to the ineffable. To know it is to unknow it. A paradox in a world disillusioned by grand narrative but yearning for coherence.

One Small Step

Metamodern spirituality offers a nuanced path forward, beyond the limitations of prior paradigms. It encourages a rich, eclectic blend of practices and rituals that draw from diverse traditions. In doing so, it offers a compelling narrative that reconciles the fragmented terrains of human experience with the ineffable grandeur of the divine.

In doing so, one can move beyond the rubble of deconstructed beliefs towards a more nuanced, integrated spiritual path that honors the complexity of human experience and the ineffable nature of the divine.