The question of a radical Munzerian Xtianity is one of the more intriguing and paradoxical lines of ‘religious discourse/critique’ given here in the sense that it answers to the twin problems of that religion: the new aging of the modern era trying to recycle Axial Age religions, and kidnapped conservative Xtian churches corrupting religion with capitalist ideology.
A radical communist Xtianity, if nothing else, is an invaluable exercise in the history of the Reformation, which created the first communist discourses, and means to try and decipher the complexity of the Xtian combination, one that, beside the convulsions of ‘secular humanists’ is an almost sphinx-like mystery religion. The clue for me was to ask how a secularized mind could deal with this cunningly designed tour de force. Answer: simple: the whole religion doesn’t make sense according to the beliefs of its adherents but this didn’t matter to the realization of its revolutionary transformation of Roman civilization, etc… This operation on two levels confuses discussion completely. The whole of the Testament epic makes a rough sense, despite contradictions. No attempt to expose the religion according to its contradictions has ever succeeded, because, standing backward, we can see that beliefs in the small were a belief system, but in the large a clear spiritual force was mysteriously at work. There are clear problems for the modern mind, however, and the effect is now different.
This solution is so obvious we miss it completely: the ‘spiritual mystery’ driving this religion didn’t pause to correct the emerging interpretations of its adherents and moved to the completion of its work, evidently the creation of an Xtian communion to absorb the old Roman Empire, laying the foundations for a new (global) civilization. So all the arguments about, e.g. the doctrine of the Resurrection pass into the limbo of ‘who cares’, ‘we got the job done’ while Xtians gaped in wonder.
There are many problems with this ground-level Xtianity, and I don’t suggest indifference or false faith. But the fact remains that noone can produce the correct account here and the older formulations simply recycle in each generation.
Moral: a novel Munzerian Xtianity doesn’t need to bother much about the historical legacy, save to point to the real miracle: that historical legacy itself. It can create a communion of all self-described Xtians and move toward an exit strategy in the centuries to come as the Axial Age religions self-recycle. This says nothing about ‘atheism’/’theism’ and such a new form of Xtianity, while hardly atheistic, can bridge the dialectic of both positions, theism, atheism. The clutter of Xtian idolatry is the real issue. The question of ‘god’ is not open to solution on logical grounds and the new atheists have an even worse muddle than the theists. If we look at history we can begin to see the real meaning of an old language. All in all the original folks there got it right: answer this question: what do you call a ‘humoungous something’ that can operate over millennia, remorph whole civilizations and prepare ancient men addicted to the roman games to your modern nine-to-five graduate of paleolithic savagery? Be careful how you answer.
A Munzerian Xtianity can help to free traditionalists from the Calvinist capitalism, and to pioneer new forms of commune/communality as a cultural/economic response to modern industrialization and its discontents, etc… This logic is embedded in the historical legacy of the Reformation.
Munzerian Xtianity can move slowly away from its roots with a New New Testament that can recount the histories of relevance and the onset of the modern era as a secular analog to the age of revelation.