Cosmology is a thing near and dear to my heart. Actually, Cosmology is two things that are near and dear to my heart. Nowadays, when you say the word, it conjures up thoughts about stars and the universe. Cosmology is the coolest of the various branches of physics. However, long before it was a study in physics, it was a study in metaphysics.
In this series, whenever I say “Cosmology”, I mean simply, the way that someone thinks that the universe works. Another term could be world view. That is the phrase most people use today. I don’t like it though. For one thing, I generally prefer antiquated terms. It’s just in my nature to use them. Secondly, when we say something about a “Christian world view,” it evokes a very homogeneous image. In this series, we will start off with extremely broad cosmologies, but we will never be so coarse as to refer to a single Christian cosmology.
My postulate for this series is that your particular cosmology, or your beliefs about how and why the universe works as it does, at it’s simplest levels has far reaching implications in the most complex thoughts and interactions of your life. This is not terribly ground breaking when you think about it. If you believe that certain invocations will send you to an unimaginable paradise for ever and ever, then you tend to work those invocations into most every part of your life. This also begets a very easy form of charity where you can get as many other people to say these invocations and they’ll be similarly happy. If it’s that simple, why not try it out as often as possible.
Alas, I’m getting ahead of myself. The astute reader will at this point be wondering, “If it takes him this long to define the subject, how convoluted will his arguments be?” The answer is, of course, extremely convoluted. I said before that this first series will take a very coarse resolution of cosmologies. This means, that several religious groups that don’t really like each other will be talked about under the same banner. While they are doctrinally quite different, the people themselves seem to behave the same way, mostly for the same reasons. For instance, if I had included Muslims and Jews as categories, they would easily fit under the banner of Unitarians. However, if I had included Christian Unitarians, then they would stick out sorely when lumped with the other two. Christian Unitarians would have to go into a Deist category.
Thankfully though, I have not included either of those three. Jews and Muslims are generally outside of the thought process of our general readership here at GJBT, and as such are reserved for the Cosmology 210 course. Christian Unitarians are just generally uninteresting. They are a one trick pony if you will.
Without further ado, let us introduce the cast of characters that we will discuss. Pay close attention to the syntax that I use, and my reasoning for it. These categories are very broad, and as such leave much room for error and misinterpretation.
Liberal Mainline: Among the large Protestant denominations, and the Catholics, the divisions are not so much along doctrine, but along tradition and progressivism. Liberal Mainlines include the liberal factions of Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopals. Among the Anglicans, only the Archbishop of Canterbury is known to me to be so inclined. They are defined by being accepting to a fault. Their biblical basis is in “Judge ye not…” which certainly has its merit. For them, the benefit of this view is always being ready to bring someone new into the fold. This is correlated with a strange sort of superstition which we will address later. Whether vocalized, canonized, or not (or indeed expressly argued against), Liberal Mainlines tend to treat the church as a means to an end. It exists to make the world better.
Conservative Mainline: These are the counterparts to their liberal brothers. They are part of the same communions and conferences as their fruity compatriots, but tend to be both politically and religiously more conservative. In most denominations, they are the rural churches. These communities tend to be smaller, by at least half, than the liberal churches in the same denomination, but there are more communities to be had. This brings about its own virtues and vices. In truth, they are the most nuanced of all the categories that we will discuss in this series. They are a middle road that I have often referred to as “Generic Protestant,” though the category we now speak of includes Catholic groups as well. They, being generally of small groups, in small towns, are defined by a sense of community.
Megachurch: These are the huge churches that you can find dotted around our country, and even the world today. They are a new phenomenon, relatively speaking. Oddly enough, these enormous congregations tend to rotate around a central figure. There is a bad habit that you find in these churches of preacher worship. The preacher is raised up on a pedestal, and when he inevitably starts believing the reports of his greatness, he falls. These crashes are spectacular, and they generally cause vast amounts of spiritual damage to those gravitating around him. Think Billy Graham, or Ted Haggard, or any of hundreds of such figures from the past fifty years.
Calvinist: Generally, Calvinist denominations are part of one of the mainlines. When they are not, they are a form of exceptionally hard-core Calvinists. A great many groups of non-denominationals fit handily into this category. They are easily the most intelligent of the literal interpreters of the Bible that you will ever run across. As such, like Calvin, they are heavy-handed with dogma and doctrine. If you disagree with them, you are likely to be dismissed as lacking in education that they will be all too happy to give you. They do tend to suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance. They are anti-authoritarian as far as church bureaucracy goes, yet have an extremely authoritarian view of God. This alone is the most pervasive part of their cosmology into their everyday life.
Charismatic/Cult/Secret Keepers: When I originally put this series together in my head, there were separate categories for Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Pentecostals. While there are a number of differences between these groups, they lump together very easily. For one thing, many of them are the same type of Unitarians as the Jews and Muslims. For another, all have a strict belief that their faith holds some secrets that the rest of Christendom is not privy to. At the very least, they feel special, and separate from the rest of us. That is their defining trait. Since there is no one good word for them, I will call them Charismatics. It is misleading in a number of ways, but it is the least misleading of the many words that might also fit.
Ascetic: Ascetics today are a mere shadow of their former glory. Today, ascetics don’t tend to wander out into the desert to do battle with the devil for twenty years at a time. Instead, they are mere erudite recluses that for one or two of a myriad of reasons, are not a part of an organized religion. They are defined by their self imposed isolation. Interestingly enough, while they do not share many of the choices, or most of the enthusiasm of their ancient counterparts, they do share many of the same motives for their decisions.
Those are the the basic categories of any Christian that you are likely to come into contact with. Next time, we’ll start putting them through their paces to see how they react to varied stimuli.
Tags: Cosmology