Christ and Nothing article by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart

That was a lot of text. What were your favorite parts? I'm suspicious of Hart a bit, because I know he is intelligent, and I also know he pushes heresies like universalism - which is not an orthodox position, having been condemned in councils.
 
That was a lot of text. What were your favorite parts? I'm suspicious of Hart a bit, because I know he is intelligent, and I also know he pushes heresies like universalism - which is not an orthodox position, having been condemned in councils.
It was interesting to see him acknowledge Nietzsche's critique of modernity as what he considered the final phase of Christianity, and Heidegger's critique of nihilism implicit in all Western thought, which "reduce being to an object of the intellect, subject to the will, that has brought us at last to the age of technology, for which reality is just so many quanta of power, the world a representation of consciousness, and the earth a mere reserve awaiting exploitation; technological mastery has become our highest ideal, and our only real model of truth".

Even with his acknowledgement, Hart argues they both were wrong, because Christianity is so great that it has subsumed all that has come before it, and there is no going back to old or different ways: "I should admit that I, for one, feel considerable sympathy for Nietzsche’s plaint, “Nearly two-thousand years and no new god”—and for Heidegger intoning his mournful oracle: “Only a god can save us.” But of course none will come. The Christian God has taken up everything into Himself; all the treasures of ancient wisdom, all the splendor of creation, every good thing has been assumed into the story of the incarnate God, and every stirring towards transcendence is soon recognized by the modern mind—weary of God—as leading back towards faith. Antique pieties cannot be restored, for we moderns know that the hungers they excite can be sated only by the gospel of Christ and him crucified. To be a Stoic today, for instance, is simply to be a soul in via to the Church; a Platonist, most of us understand, is only a Christian manqué; and a polytheist is merely a truant from the one God he hates and loves."

Hart recommends a turn back toward asceticism: " In practical terms, I suspect that this means that Christians must make an ever more concerted effort to recall and recover the wisdom and centrality of the ascetic tradition. It takes formidable faith and devotion to resist the evils of one’s age, and it is to the history of Christian asceticism—especially, perhaps, the apophthegms of the Desert Fathers—that all Christians, whether married or not, should turn for guidance. "
 
Yes, thanks for the reflection, it is quite informative, @JR5

It's interesting to think that's there's no "new God" but I think we realize that which materialism sets forth is a combination of what you said, the new vision of "progressivism" is man as the new god through technological mastery, who hopes to live forever. Sadly, this denies the teaching of the garden of Eden, which is the understanding that no, man can't do it on his own, which was the inclination for the ancestral sin.

I do think there is something else creeping up here, that is a god of the technological age, the hybrid use of tech to make man a hybrid computer and perhaps even lower than some vision of an AI that is over him in a sick hierarchy. This archetype would be one similar to the abomination when something else sits in the temple of God (the human heart, where Christ should be), desecrating it.
 
Back
Top