Theologies and Cosmologies of New Religious Movements (Contrasted with Classical Theism)

Classical Theism

Classical theism (typically represented by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) is the theological position that views God as a personal, eternal, incorporeal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good entity who is the creator of the cosmos. In this blog, I will discuss how the six New Religious Movements (NRM's) discussed in Bednarowski's book, New Religions & The Theological Imagination in America, deviate from this conception of God.  These NRM's include Mormonism, New Age, Theosophy, Christian Science, Scientology, and the Unification Church. Disclaimer: this is by no means an exhaustive treatment of the differences; it's just a really stinkin short summary (emphasis on "stinkin"). 

Theologies and Cosmologies of Various NRM's

Mormonism envisions God as having been a man who, through various means, became God. What's more, contrary to the notion of divine incorporeality, Mormon theology maintains that God still has a body, is a male, and is the literal father of Jesus (you might say that Jesus is the literal bio-spiritual offspring of the Father. Does this mean that there was divine copulation between God and a female deity? It seems likely, but the Mormons I've talked to about this matter have said, "we don't know"). Regarding the Cosmos, the Mormon God did not create the material world ex nihilo but has existed eternally with it, organizing it according to his design (Bednarowski, 21-24). 

According to the Unification church, God is made of dual or polar characteristics, whether positivity and negativity, or male and female. Also, Unificationist theology places a significant emphasis on divine passibility, arguing that God is heavily moved by the fallen state of the world, hurt by its rebellion and desiring for humanity to realign itself with His plans and purposes (Bednarowski, 24-26) [1].

Christian Science rejects the projection of anthropomorphic qualities onto God. In its place, Christian Science describes God as incorporeal, divine, infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, and Love. While this notion of deity may seem abstract, Christian Science is quick to emphasize that God still has personal qualities; most notably, God is a loving and nurturing entity. Perhaps one of the doctrines that deviates the most from classical theism is Christian Science’s monistic worldview; everything that exists is part of the divine mind (Stein, 93). As a consequence of this, the material world, including all suffering, is seen as illusory and non-existent. This is because whatever is reflected in the divine mind must be perfect, but, it seems, both material things and suffering are imperfections. Thus, they are not part of the divine mind, and, seeing as how only perfections exist in the divine mind, suffering and matter do not exist (Bednarowski, 28-32). You get the point.

Scientology, on the other hand, does not have any well-defined doctrines about the nature of God. They affirm that some kind of transcendent entity must exist but that it is not clear what this being is like. Nonetheless, they are open to gaining further theological insight which is likely to come through a process of self-discovery, with each individual constructing a theology that is meaningful and coherent to them (Bednarowski, 32-33). 

Like Christian Science, Theosophy rejects a personal, anthropomorphic view of God. Unlike Christian Science, though, Theosophy claims that God is in everything. God, or “the One”, is understood as being manifest in every material object but is not totally contained by material reality. In this way, Theosophy is more panentheistic than pantheistic, further distancing itself from classical theism. Furthermore, Theosophy tends to blur the creator-creation distinction affirmed by classical theism by maintaining that humans are manifestations of the One and that the whole cosmos is evolving towards a deeper God-consciousness. Through compassion and wisdom, Theosophy maintains that persons can escape the cycle of birth, death, and reincarnation (Bednarowski, 35-38). 

Lastly, the New Age movement tends to be more disparate and less systematic than the previous NRM’s considered. Nonetheless, some common theological themes can be gleaned. Like Theosophy, New Ager’s reject the subject-object distinction made by classical theism, affirming instead that God is in everything and everything is in God. In fact, the immanence of God is at the forefront of New Age theological reflections and supplies the rational for protesting against individualism and environmental exploitation. New Age encourages people to view reality in an interconnected, panentheistic way, with the hope that individualism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, and the distinctions that cater to these problematic attitudes will be dissolved (Bednarowski, 39-42).

______________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] It's hard to say that the idea of divine passibility is a significant deviation from classical theism. Although there have been Christian theologians who have argued that God does not change in his feelings (ex., Acquinas), there have also been those who have defended divine passibility while also maintaining orthodoxy in other areas (this seems particularly true in contemporary Christian philosophical theology). So, I'm not sure why Bednarowski sees this as a quality that significantly distinguishes the Unification church from classical theism. 

Works cited: 

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, New Religions & The Theological Imagination in America

Stephen J. Stein, Communities of Dissent: A History of Alternative Religions in America.