Bruce Charlton has two essays on how Christianity can be neither fish nor fowl.

On the Incarnation and our relationship to God, he points out that if God is too much of a person, he can’t save us. Sin is part of the human condition. If He is to be able to transcend that part of the human condition for us, he must be greater than human to that degree, since we can’t even transcend it for ourselves. But if God is not enough of a man, we can’t relate to Him enough to be saved. Love and trustworthiness are both humanly-comprehensible qualities that God cannot have if He is utterly beyond us.

On monism and pluralism, Bruce points out that

necessary features and properties [of Christianity] lie on both sides of the pluralism-monism divide; and this divide cannot be mended any more than relativity can be integrated with quantum physics.

To the extent Mormons think metaphysically at all, they think of themselves as pluralists. But straight pluralism is flawed. It cannot offer any explanation for why everything fits together and can be circumscribed into one great whole. Pluralism cannot account for how different entities can even interact or have awareness of each other, let alone how they can fit together perfectly and synergistically in marriage and in the Godhood. Whereas monism can’t account for how multiple different things exist at all. Love is pluralist in that it requires a lover and a beloved. Love is monist in that it implies a basic comprehensibility, even unity, between the two.

Philosophically the weird hybrid of monism and pluralism that we experience doesn’t make sense. But we should take experience and love, not philosophy, as primary.

Why doesn’t God solve these puzzles for us? Why isn’t there a revealed technical Christology or a completely-expressed divine metaphysics?

It may be that our struggles to understand are good for us. It may be that such revelations would be a distraction from the more basic and more important truths, or even liable to be misunderstood. But more likely, we are simply incapable of understanding in our present condition.

Continue reading at the original source →