• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Plumbing the Depths

A Metamodern Theology That Dares to Make God Real (Again)

Frank Visser / Grok

This single-authored article "Towards a Metamodern Theology: The DEPTH Model" by metamodernist Brendan Graham Dempsey appears in Religions, an open-access MDPI journal. Dempsey, affiliated with the Institute of Applied Metatheory (Scottsdale, AZ), proposes the DEPTH model—a Developmental, Emergent, Participatory Theology of Harmonization—as a "metamodern" synthesis. It aims to reconcile traditional theism's emphasis on God's immutability and transcendence with modern/postmodern views of God as mutable, immanent, and historically contingent. The core thesis: "God can be understood as immanent and mutable—but also real: immanent in that God is not radically distinct from the natural world; mutable in precisely the sorts of ways that (post)modern-critical analysis has demonstrated the historically contingent manifestations of the divine across time; yet real in the sense that these manifestations have not been purely subjective psychological projections but actual, collectively produced emergent phenomena with objective causal power."

THEORY

The paper unfolds in a neat acronym-driven structure: sections on Emergent, Participatory, Theology, Harmonization, Developmental, followed by future directions and clarifications (including a five-level "Map of God" typology). It draws on complexity science (e.g., Anderson's "more is different," Mitchell on complex systems, Hoel on causal emergence), the author's preferred Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTOK) framework, negentropic thermodynamics, metamodernism (Vermeulen & van den Akker), process theology echoes (Whitehead, Teilhard, Oord), and historical-critical biblical scholarship (Römer, Wright, Armstrong). Two figures illustrate the UTOK "Tree of Knowledge" and the God-levels spectrum. No empirical methods, data, or original fieldwork—purely conceptual synthesis. The piece is concise (roughly 20-25 journal pages), self-contained, and forward-looking.

Strengths

Dempsey's project is ambitious and timely. In an era of declining institutional religion alongside persistent spiritual hunger, a "naturalistic theological framework" that affirms God's objective reality without supernatural dualism is genuinely creative. The emergence lens is particularly strong: God arises as a higher-order, causally efficacious phenomenon from collective human participation (e.g., charismatic worship generating "palpable divine presence" beyond mere Durkheimian projection). This sidesteps both classical theism's static deity and reductive atheism by granting God "real causal power" at the cultural level—analogous to an ant colony's superorganism status. The participatory mechanism (Matthew 18:20 as activation trigger) and harmonization-as-negentropy offer fresh metaphors for how divine forms evolve with societal complexity (foraging → farming → future "Cathedral-building").

The DEPTH acronym provides mnemonic clarity and systematic coherence. Dempsey usefully maps divine mutability onto developmental directionality: successful harmonization yields "over-abundant intensity" and expanded capability, while regression yields entropy. This reframes sacred history, theodicy, Christology, and eschatology productively. The five-level God typology (from "beyond Being" to future culmination) is a helpful heuristic for navigating syncretisms and evolutionary theology. Citations are interdisciplinary and up-to-date (Azarian 2022, Henriques 2023, Hoel 2023), avoiding insularity. The writing is lucid and accessible, free of excessive jargon while still engaging specialists. No external funding or conflicts declared—refreshingly transparent.

Overall, the paper succeeds as a provocative manifesto for "metamodern theology." It bridges science-religion divides more convincingly than many integral or process theologies by grounding claims in causal emergence rather than panpsychism or vague holism.

Weaknesses and Critiques

Despite its elegance, the argument rests on philosophical sleight-of-hand and selective synthesis rather than rigorous demonstration.

Ontological vagueness and unfalsifiability: Dempsey asserts emergent God is "real" with "objective causal power" yet "immanent" and "not radically distinct from the natural world." This sounds profound but dissolves under scrutiny. What testable difference exists between this "God" and a powerful cultural meme-complex or social fiction (Dawkins, Blackmore, Storm's "process social kinds")? Supervenience and downward causation are invoked but not defended against standard reductionist objections (e.g., Kim's causal exclusion problem in philosophy of mind). The ant-colony analogy, while vivid, fails: colonies have clear boundaries and observable macro-effects; "God" does not. The claim that God is "nascent already in the dissipative structuring of a whirlpool" stretches emergence to absurdity, blurring useful distinctions between physical, biological, and cultural levels.

Lack of methodological rigor: This is speculative theology dressed in scientific language, not theology informed by science. No criteria for distinguishing genuine divine emergence from psychological projection or power dynamics. Historical examples (war deities → monotheism) are cherry-picked to fit a progressive narrative; regressions (e.g., rise of Satan, Forsyth 1989; deconstructive critiques, Pagels) are downplayed. The developmental directionality ("moving closer to God entails expansion, wellbeing... moving the other way: negation, regression") imports unexamined normative assumptions reminiscent of Hegel or Wilber—critiqued internally yet not escaped. Postmodern relativism is dismissed as "overcorrection," but the paper offers no non-circular metric for "better" divine forms.

Self-referential bias and limited engagement: Dempsey cites his own prior work extensively (Dempsey 2021-2024 on "Building the Cathedral," metamodernism). The Institute of Applied Metatheory affiliation suggests the paper functions partly as intellectual branding. Engagement with analytic philosophy of religion is absent (no Plantinga, Swinburne, or Oppy on naturalism/theism). Critics of emergence in theology (e.g., Clayton, Peacocke debates) or strong critiques of process thought receive scant attention. Metamodernism itself is treated as a settled paradigm rather than a contested cultural mood. The "God 1,2,3,4,5" map, while visually appealing, feels arbitrary—more diagram than argument.

Venue considerations: Religions (MDPI) publishes rapidly; the article appeared mere days before this review (4 March 2026). While not inherently disqualifying, MDPI has faced broader scrutiny regarding review speed versus depth for speculative pieces. This paper's novelty lies in framing, not empirical or logical breakthroughs—precisely the sort that benefits from slower, adversarial peer review.

Contribution and Future Directions

The paper's primary value is heuristic and inspirational. It offers a coherent naturalistic vocabulary for speaking of "God" post-secularly, potentially appealing to integral, process, and complexity-oriented thinkers. Applications to sacred history or eschatology could spark empirical studies (e.g., measuring collective "harmonization" via network analysis or energy metrics). It productively supplements projection theories without fully supplanting them.

However, without clearer falsifiability criteria, operational definitions, or engagement with opposing literatures, it risks remaining a sophisticated re-description rather than a paradigm shift. Future work Dempsey sketches—Christology as emergent incarnation, theodicy as developmental friction—is promising but requires concrete case studies or formal modeling.

Overall Assessment

Strength: 7/10 for originality, interdisciplinary breadth, and clarity.

Weakness: 4/10 for philosophical rigor, evidential grounding, and critical engagement.

Net verdict: A stimulating, creative contribution to metamodern and emergentist theology—worth reading for anyone interested in post-secular God-concepts—but ultimately more visionary essay than demonstrated advance. It synthesizes existing strands (process + complexity + metamodernism) into an appealing package without resolving core ontological tensions. Scholars in theology of science or cultural evolution will find it provocative; analytic philosophers of religion may find it underwhelming. Recommended with caveats: treat as an opening proposal, not a settled framework. Further development, especially empirical or formal extensions, could elevate it significantly.

PRACTICE

The DEPTH model (Developmental, Emergent, Participatory Theology of Harmonization) offers a naturalistic, metamodern framework for understanding God as a real, causally efficacious phenomenon that emerges from human participation, evolves through cultural complexity, and advances via negentropic harmonization. While the 2026 paper itself is primarily theoretical, it explicitly sketches interpretive and practical applications across theology, spirituality, and society—and ties directly into Brendan Graham Dempsey's broader body of work (e.g., the Building the Cathedral project and Institute of Applied Metatheory initiatives). Below, I map out the model's proposed and potential applications, grounded in the paper's own suggestions plus connected extensions. These range from reinterpreting doctrine to guiding lived practice and even quantitative research.

1. Theological Applications: Reinterpreting Core Doctrines

The model reframes classical and modern theological problems through emergence and development, turning apparent contradictions into dynamic processes.

Christology as Emergent Incarnation

Christ is not a one-time supernatural event but an ongoing higher-order reality that “supervenes” on collective human minds through ritual and devotion. In charismatic worship, for example, “shared attention and intention… [make] the presence of the Spirit… naturally generated by the congregants.” This allows a participatory incarnation: God becomes “incarnate” whenever groups harmonize sufficiently to produce downward causal effects. Future work could explore staged Christogenesis—Christ evolving across the five God-levels (see Map below)—aligning with process theology while remaining fully naturalistic.

Theodicy as Developmental Friction

Suffering is not a puzzle for an omnipotent God but the very mechanism driving divine maturation. Drawing on William James's ether-dream account (“Knowledge and Love are One, and the measure is suffering”), pain becomes “developmental friction” that bends God's trajectory toward greater coherence and love. God's power is substrate-dependent (tied to human cultural evolution), so moral progress is co-evolutionary. This sidesteps traditional problems of evil while preserving divine reality—suffering is the cost of God's (and humanity's) growth.

Eschatology and Sacred History as Cosmic Complexification

History is God's own developmental arc: from tribal deities (God 3a) to axial-age breakthroughs to a future “God 5” culmination. Eschatology becomes participatory co-creation rather than top-down apocalypse—“an asymptotic culmination point… to which all forms are progressively tending.” Covenantal shifts or source-critical layers in scripture are re-read as genuine evolutionary milestones, not mere human projections.

These reinterpretations give preachers, theologians, and interfaith scholars concrete tools for addressing postmodern skepticism without abandoning realism.

2. The Five-Level “Map of God” as a Practical Diagnostic Tool

Central to applications is Figure 2's typology (God 0-5), plotted along cosmic complexification:

God 0: Pre-/beyond Being (apophatic absolute).

God 1: Ground of Being (classical theism).

God 2: Negentropic principle across scales (emergent order).

God 3: Culturally inflected (sub-stages: tribal → archaic → axial).

God 4: Current highest cultural form.

God 5: Future telos—fully realized divine potential.

Applications:

Personal discernment: Individuals or communities can locate their current “God-concept” on the map and consciously move toward higher levels (e.g., from power-oriented God 3a to benevolent God 4).

Interfaith harmonization: Compare traditions—e.g., Advaita Vedanta as God 1, Pentecostal encounter as God 3-4 activation—without relativism.

Pastoral counseling: Diagnose spiritual stagnation (“regression to entropy”) versus growth (“over-abundant intensity”).

Liturgical design: Craft rituals that intentionally trigger emergence at the desired level.

This map functions like a spiritual GPS—simple yet scalable.

3. Practical and Spiritual Applications: From Worship to Myth-Making

DEPTH is explicitly participatory and developmental, so its strongest real-world traction is in lived religion.

Worship and Group Practice

Charismatic or contemplative gatherings become “activation protocols.” Shared intention + attention = emergent divine presence with measurable causal power (e.g., collective emotional regulation, moral motivation, or social cohesion). Communities could deliberately design services around harmonization principles—negentropic rituals that “harness new energy… to instantiate real phenomena at a higher order.”

Personal Mythopoesis and “Building the Cathedral”

The paper's most concrete call-to-action: “The self-conscious effort to actively co-construct future phases of God's development is a global, multi-generational project I refer to as ‘building the Cathedral.'” Individuals engage in personal myth-making (drawing on Jungian archetypes, DMT cosmology, or syncretic symbols) to birth God 5. Dempsey's ongoing Substack series and book Building the Cathedral already operationalize this—readers are invited to become “systems poets” crafting new sacred stories that integrate science, psychedelics, and transcendence. This scales from solo journaling to communal art projects or metamodern festivals.

Spiritual Formation / Faith Development

Ties directly to Dempsey's IAM work on Faith Development Pathways and the Cultural Complexity Index (CCI). Practitioners can track their own or their community's movement through developmental stages, using quantitative metrics of meaning-making complexity to measure “progress toward God.”

4. Empirical and Research Applications

The model invites falsifiable testing—addressing one of my earlier critiques about vagueness.

Group Emergence Studies

Measure “downward causation” in worship settings (e.g., pre/post surveys on collective efficacy, physiological synchrony, or prosocial behavior). Analogies to bioelectric morphogenesis or symbolic information processing in culture provide testable hypotheses.

Cultural Complexity Index (CCI)

Dempsey's flagship IAM project quantifies 5,000+ years of religious/cultural evolution using hierarchical complexity scales (Lectical, Kegan, Fowler, etc.). This could empirically validate DEPTH's claim that divine forms advance with societal negentropy—offering the first quantitative map of “God's development.”

Theodicy and Suffering Research

Longitudinal studies of how personal or collective trauma catalyzes spiritual growth (James-style case studies expanded to communities).

5. Societal and Civilizational Applications

Via the Institute of Applied Metatheory (which Dempsey founded to apply integrative metatheories to “big problems”), DEPTH extends to culture-wide transformation.

Metamodern Reconstruction of Religion

In dialogues (e.g., with Matthew Segall or on the Jim Rutt Show), DEPTH informs “Christ after Christianity” or post-religious spirituality—rebuilding meaning without fundamentalism or nihilism.

Global Cathedral-Building

Multi-generational cultural projects: new myths, ethical systems, or even policy frameworks (e.g., education that teaches emergence thinking, environmental ethics grounded in negentropic duty).

Interfaith and Metatheory Integration

Harmonize process, integral, Jungian, and complexity traditions under one roof—ideal for think-tanks, conferences, or civilizational foresight work.

Feasibility and Critical Notes

Strengths in Application: DEPTH is unusually actionable for a metatheory—offering both a diagnostic map and a participatory practice (“build the Cathedral”). It bridges the meaning crisis by giving scientifically literate people a way to speak of “real God” without supernaturalism. Early extensions (CCI, mythopoesis series) already exist and are being stress-tested in integral/metamodern communities.

Limitations: Applications remain largely aspirational and self-referential so far. Empirical protocols are sketched but not yet executed; “emergent causal power” still needs operational definitions to avoid collapsing into social psychology. The developmental arrow assumes progress is inherently “better”—a normative leap that requires careful guarding against Whig history or cult-like dynamics. Cultural uptake may be limited to highly educated, complexity-savvy audiences.

How to Get Started

Locate yourself on the God 0-5 Map and journal one harmonization practice.

Join or start a “Cathedral-building” circle (Dempsey's Substack and IAM resources provide templates).

For researchers: design a simple worship-emergence study or contribute to the CCI.

Theologians/ministers: preach a sermon series on “God 4 → God 5” using theodicy-as-friction.

In short, DEPTH is not just another abstract model—it is an invitation to co-author the next chapter of divine evolution. As the paper concludes, “It is precisely because of the evolutionary dynamics driving cosmic complexification that God as we know him can be real at all.” The applications turn that insight into a living project. Whether it scales into a genuine metamodern movement will depend on the very participation it theorizes. Worth experimenting with—especially if you're already drawn to emergence, complexity, or the meaning crisis.