Our discussions of a Munzerian radical/communism Xtianity are a useful terrain for exploring different possibilities. But that context (see the Preface to LFM on the ‘virtual church’ and the Cancel button) is highly conflicted and would require a revolutionary new initiative.
But the real issue is for the left to deal with Xtians without the sterile framework of historical materialism. The latter is probably the worst philosophy of all in the effort to deal with the complexity of human psychology, and religion. In fact, it can’t do justice to secularism and is a very narrow outcome of the larger movement of ‘modern’ thought.
But, at the same time, an antiquated Xtian legacy is not going to prove viable in the New Age emerging if it can’t begin to study itself, and or recreate itself as a vehicle of the future, and more specifically of communism.
I think Xtians should begin to realize that the ‘spiritual powers’ they refer to as ‘Jesus’ or ‘The Christ” are moving to respond to a leftist initiative by Xtians toward postcapitalism. The days of Calvinist capitalism from the early Reformation exposed by Weber are over.
I think that our distinction of the Paths of Will and the Paths of Being, over at The Gurdjieff Con, and here, should the generate rubric in which Xtianity is cast. The left could adopt these two categories, plus a third, as study zones in the real of ‘monotheism’ and ‘paths’ such as ‘buddhism’.
In that context the Church of Munzerian communists has an almost infinitely broad venue of future potential if we generalize the core idea of will. That’s one vehicle of the future that would start to leave “Sunday School” Xtianaity for tiny Tots behind, and move to something that, just as we try to get marxists to appeal to Xtians, Xtians could produce to appeal to leftists/marxists. ETc..
The reality here is that beyond our gedanken experiment we are moving in terrain where leftists and Xtians are highly nervous, existential dread and psychic blackout, and recoil from facing the reality of their beliefs confronted with the ‘complexity of the real’.
We actually posed a third possibility, and this referred to ‘secularism’ itself. The strange reality is that noone can really define ‘secularism. Its very narrow interpretations are failing. A dialectical response to try and bring religion in (it was always there) is one key, but this will end up in muddle, as we can see from rightist antimodern Xtianity trying frantically to override the modern world. These efforts will also fail. It is remarkable but true that secularists can’t define their ism.
You can see this from studying the New Atheists.
The key to the solution is to see how little ‘modernists’ even study their subject. Sit down and study WHEE to see how much gets eliminated by simplistic modernists.