Is the idea of Munzerian Xtianity really viable? Maybe not, but…The mood of this idea comes from the Preface to Last and First Men, where the idea of a ‘virtual church’ is discussed. It is possible to take a radical Xtianity in that vein. But radical Xtianity has always had a concrete existence from the early modern to the abolitionists to the era of Martin Luther Kind.
I think, however, that radical Xtians would be at risk from capitalist forces nearly succeeding in ripping off the whole religion of Xtianity: they would do what Luther did: murder Munzer.
But I think that even as an exercise or gedanken experiment the idea is invaluable: marxists forget that Xtians created modern communism. They deserve better than what they got here.
The problem is that the Axial Age religions are undergoing a kind of shock in the transition to a new era. The main thing is for leftists to not impose insanity-generating idiocies on the whole of culture, but this type of reductionist mindfuck is all too evident from the beginning, with a new round in the new atheists.
The only reason I attempt to review religion here is that religion, contrary to the views of secular humanists, was built into the modern transition. That’s that: the ‘genre’ gets a new tank of gas for a new era. And we fail to see the way buddhism was pulled out of a hat like a rabbit at the end of the Enlightenment: witness figures like Schopenhauer, and many others. It is worth noting that Schopenhauer is one of the sources of the ‘new age’ movement, figures like Blavatsky coming later with no ability to really clarify the issues.
Just to shock the question: we don’t even need the concept of ‘god’ in a Protestant theology. The dualities of theism/atheism can be transcended in about five minutes of theological sanity, as with the ancients who forbade ‘god reference’ for indirect gestures like IHVH… Xtians have missed the point of the new atheist attacks: the views on ‘god’ of the majority of Xtians are so childish a phase of, not atheism, but silence about ‘god’ would help them to get their bearings.
And we should point to the far superior forms of theology long known, since antiquity. For example, the issue of ‘god’s’ existence has confused the question: the nature of reality needs a more complex model: the ‘existence’ of god is not worth defending. ‘He’ can’t be god and ‘exist’. Existence is a part of the created world. God would have to stand beyond that. That joker in deck shows that centuries of nonsense for and against the ‘existence’ of god were misplaced discussions.