TOE

a theory of everything is a fundamental concept used to describe an underlying reality that is theorized to exist, and which, once understood, would help to explain and even predict everything we see. the reason i consider a TOE to be important is because having one results in a holistic and consistent understanding regardless of your frame of reference.

physics is in search of one. right now newtonian mechanics (needed to get a spaceship to the moon) and a refinement of that - einsteins relativity (needed to keep satellites for your tv in orbit / sync) describes everything big; and quantum mechanics describe everything really small. quantum mechanics says things like - one photon went through two physical slots - unless you observe it and then "the wave equations will collapse" and you'll be able to tell which one it really went through. combining these however, this leads to macro-paradoxes like schrodinger's cat, alive and dead at the same time until observed. there really is no reason one set of rules holds true for one set of conditions - and another set holds true for another. when you do the math and try to combine these - you get a divide by zero. and those suck.

fundamentalism could use a TOE as well - but i'm not certain they’re looking for one. fundy's insist upon a certain way to think, to look at truth, to see the world. while they remain convinced that this approach gives them security and keeps them grounded - there no consensus / agreement as to what the specifics (i.e. facts) are - only that there are, for sure, specifics. i have come to think of fundamentalism as a religion all its own (ht: john austin) - regardless of its roots be they in christianity, islam, or mormonism. divide by zero.

evangelicalism has a softer version of this "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty". still, who defines essentials? the very existence of the word "denominations" encapsulates the telling failure of a holistic and consistent understanding that ascribes to this view. like in physics, there really is no reason one set of rules holds true for one set of conditions (denominations) - and another set holds true for another. divide by zero.

the emergenting (i'm still gonna get you for that Tony!) church should be in search of a TOE as well, i think... although i do think its a bit early for one to have fully emerged (who among us could predict a honeycomb by examining one or even several bees?). i'm really thankful for peter rollins work - far and away i think he is presenting the most cogent thoughts representing (vice describing) the emerging church and how to/we think. however, i believe we have our own divide by zero waiting, lurking - not unlike the issue in physics. while our thinking does operate in the realm of high dimensionality (allowing for seemingly mutually exclusive things to be simultaneously true / with a better understanding of point-of-view), i think we have been unable to offer a cohesive theory of how, statistically speaking, God doesn't hate brown people. what i mean by that is - if we understand that the path to heaven lies within Christ/Christianity - and statistically speaking brown people are not exposed to Christianity - how do we account for salvation outside an understanding of Christianity? assuming we believe the new heaven isn't comprised of balding middle aged white men. um, because i would hafta rename that place ;-)

while i have my thoughts on the subject (my four longtime readers might even guess how i would put that together) - i think there are a few ways to get there... and, i'd love to hear others. there might not be enough room in the comments - but i'd love a link to your blogpost!

tag!