Reimagining New Paradigms
That Speaks to the Present

[Premise]

"Incarnation"
>

The problem with re-imagining Christianity is that we often seek to re-imagine it within the same old traditional Christian paradigms of sin and atonement, of a God who whose hatred of sin must be appeased by a blood sacrifice. Even many of those who espoused Christian Universalism hold that God’s Holiness must be appeased; if not in this life, then in the after-life.

The paradigms that have taken over the dogma of Christianity are not all that old. St. Augustine, where much of current atonement theory originated was born about four hundred years after the death of Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas, another Doctor of the Church, didn't come on the scene until around 1225. Modern day Premillennialism is even newer, gaining popularity in the 1850s under John Nelson Darby. The truth is that very little of modern-day Christian dogma dates to the era of the early Church and the Church Fathers.

My thought is that if it was permissible for the Church Fathers (The Doctors of the Church) to develop their own speculations into theologies that became accepted dogma, then it is not wrong for someone living today to speculate upon a re-imagined vision of Christian faith. After all, is this not what Martin Luther and John Calvin did?

There are three premises, that I believe must be held to, if a re-imagined Christianity is to be Christian:

First, it must find its roots in the words of Jesus. The Hebrew and Christian Testaments must not interpret the words of Jesus, but rather the words of Jesus must interpret the testaments.

Secondly, it must take to heart the Great Commission to make disciples. The Commission must however be viewed through the words of Jesus, which may not be how the modern church views the Great Commission.

Thirdly, it must fall within the broad definition of Christian. That is one who seeks to follow the Way of Jesus.

There is another premise, if a re-imagined Christianity is to speak to a metamodern era it must embrace both science and the natural universe as God’s “Second Testament.”

Following these premises, I believe we will come to understand:

A. That God is Pure Love, both as noun and a verb—an Energy rather than a being with supernatural attributes, including a retributive one.
B. That this Pure Love as Energy permeates the entirety of the universe.
C. That Jesus in his life demonstrated not only what it means to say that the kingdom of God – the kingdom of Pure Love -- is present in the here and now, but also demonstrate that Pure Love requires us to live Love as purely as possible, even if it means death.

As we speculate upon what a re-imagined Christianity might look like we will be expand upon each of these.

Frank A. Mills
Sheffield Lake, OH
February 9, 2025