Thank you for these fine ruminations. I am only now reading it, as I had been working on a review for Jonathan Geltner’s new novel, Absolute Music (posted on Fr. Kimel’s Eclectic Orthodoxy blog.) You and Geltner share an ecological concern and a sense of local habitation as inspiring particular consciousness. William Desmond writes, “The muse must be wooed, and wooed in relation to genius, and genius is not just my genius as this singular thinker or poet or artist, but also the genius of a place or locale, which too is the genius of a people. One is located.” I surmise you will be familiar with Black Elk Speaks. A lesser known work you should read is the fictional Okla Hanali by R. A. Lafferty. As a fan of Dr. Who as far back as the Tom Baker years, I am open to the possibility of other sapient life forms. (I don’t see how one could fundamentally exclude it.) Nonetheless, my caveat to your speculation is that if one believes that Incarnation and Resurrection is the continuation of Genesis, or perhaps better, it’s fully proper enactment, then I am dubious that one should or could relativize homo sapiens, as foolish as the species often is. I think Christ is the ultimate ground of the cosmos, and so there is some sense in which the victory on the Cross is the manner in which “the human thing in its perfection” is revealed to be both the antidote to death for all flesh and the hidden ground of being. At least, that is how I read the gospel in its intent.
I'd like to ask a question, if you allow me, as it's surely no coincidence that I've been dwelling upon some of these very ideas in the last few days.
Basically, I'm wondering how Christianity comes into all of this. Because, unless I'm wrong (which is very likely, given my only superficial knowledge of these matters) one of the tensions present in the Gospels is that of the Kingdom of God as described by Jesus versus the Promised Land of the Old Testament. Many expected the Messiah to be a prince who would conquer the enemies of Israel, free its people and deliver the promised plot of land... but Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world and delivered an invitation to transcendence that basically ignored the issue of land, race or people. If this is true, doesn't it mean that Christ turned the whole narrative related to land on its head? Perhaps it's one of the reasons behind Christianity's great success at evangelizing half the world.
Jesus also, as David Bentley Hart has written (on First Things!), established once and for all the supremacy of the one God; disempowering, so to speak, all other spirits and principalities. (I think the essay is called 'Christ and Nothing'.)
Considering both of these issues, we end up with an interesting teleological vision of the whole Bible, as well as of the history and spiritual evolution of Hebrew culture: a rather enigmatic and faceless God looks after, protects and punishes His chosen people, who will later be rewarded with the greatest gift of all: His one beloved son, Who comes to reveal the true, otherworldly meaning of the ancient covenants and promises. God delivers His part of the deal in a most unexpected way - their loyalty, however, is rewarded with unprecedented mercy, enlightment, and revelation.
Now, this radical approach to spirituality - radical in its otherworldliness and insistence upon faith in the one God - happens to be present in Gaudiya Vaishnavism as well. And, while attachment to place and even worship of lesser (semi) divine entities are not entirely condemned, they are seen as intermediate steps in the process of a realization that culminates in the surrender to the all-encompassing Ultimate Reality, Whose worship not only superceeds but also somehow includes due homage to all other benign gods and spirits, and Who dwells in an eternal abode which is our only true home. After all, we are purely spiritual beings and will always be out of place here on Earth, where every possible arrangement, good as it may be, is doomed to end sooner or later, more or less catastrophically (regardless of how much you spend on security and weapons).
Jesus told His followers not to worry about "What might we drink, eat or wear? But first seek His Kingdom and his justice, and all of these things will be supplied to you." Perhaps we could also add "Where shall we live?"
My claim is that the teachings of pure religion, as taught by Lord Jesus as well as Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, make the case for a radical transformation of consciousness that leads us beyond the specific concern with land but, ultimately, includes land and all its bounty as part of our rightful heritage when we finally awaken Christ the Son within our hearts. That is, groundedness is naturally and even automatically included in the spiritual pursuit, because that pursuit is the very purpose of life on this planet.
Any thoughts you may have will be most welcome. But please... don't just say "I don't buy that"! :D
I am curious about your comment in fn. 2 about First Things. I read the magazine but either not closely enough or for enough time to have picked up on the difference you note. What is it? Thanks, Andy
David,
Thank you for these fine ruminations. I am only now reading it, as I had been working on a review for Jonathan Geltner’s new novel, Absolute Music (posted on Fr. Kimel’s Eclectic Orthodoxy blog.) You and Geltner share an ecological concern and a sense of local habitation as inspiring particular consciousness. William Desmond writes, “The muse must be wooed, and wooed in relation to genius, and genius is not just my genius as this singular thinker or poet or artist, but also the genius of a place or locale, which too is the genius of a people. One is located.” I surmise you will be familiar with Black Elk Speaks. A lesser known work you should read is the fictional Okla Hanali by R. A. Lafferty. As a fan of Dr. Who as far back as the Tom Baker years, I am open to the possibility of other sapient life forms. (I don’t see how one could fundamentally exclude it.) Nonetheless, my caveat to your speculation is that if one believes that Incarnation and Resurrection is the continuation of Genesis, or perhaps better, it’s fully proper enactment, then I am dubious that one should or could relativize homo sapiens, as foolish as the species often is. I think Christ is the ultimate ground of the cosmos, and so there is some sense in which the victory on the Cross is the manner in which “the human thing in its perfection” is revealed to be both the antidote to death for all flesh and the hidden ground of being. At least, that is how I read the gospel in its intent.
I'd like to ask a question, if you allow me, as it's surely no coincidence that I've been dwelling upon some of these very ideas in the last few days.
Basically, I'm wondering how Christianity comes into all of this. Because, unless I'm wrong (which is very likely, given my only superficial knowledge of these matters) one of the tensions present in the Gospels is that of the Kingdom of God as described by Jesus versus the Promised Land of the Old Testament. Many expected the Messiah to be a prince who would conquer the enemies of Israel, free its people and deliver the promised plot of land... but Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world and delivered an invitation to transcendence that basically ignored the issue of land, race or people. If this is true, doesn't it mean that Christ turned the whole narrative related to land on its head? Perhaps it's one of the reasons behind Christianity's great success at evangelizing half the world.
Jesus also, as David Bentley Hart has written (on First Things!), established once and for all the supremacy of the one God; disempowering, so to speak, all other spirits and principalities. (I think the essay is called 'Christ and Nothing'.)
Considering both of these issues, we end up with an interesting teleological vision of the whole Bible, as well as of the history and spiritual evolution of Hebrew culture: a rather enigmatic and faceless God looks after, protects and punishes His chosen people, who will later be rewarded with the greatest gift of all: His one beloved son, Who comes to reveal the true, otherworldly meaning of the ancient covenants and promises. God delivers His part of the deal in a most unexpected way - their loyalty, however, is rewarded with unprecedented mercy, enlightment, and revelation.
Now, this radical approach to spirituality - radical in its otherworldliness and insistence upon faith in the one God - happens to be present in Gaudiya Vaishnavism as well. And, while attachment to place and even worship of lesser (semi) divine entities are not entirely condemned, they are seen as intermediate steps in the process of a realization that culminates in the surrender to the all-encompassing Ultimate Reality, Whose worship not only superceeds but also somehow includes due homage to all other benign gods and spirits, and Who dwells in an eternal abode which is our only true home. After all, we are purely spiritual beings and will always be out of place here on Earth, where every possible arrangement, good as it may be, is doomed to end sooner or later, more or less catastrophically (regardless of how much you spend on security and weapons).
Jesus told His followers not to worry about "What might we drink, eat or wear? But first seek His Kingdom and his justice, and all of these things will be supplied to you." Perhaps we could also add "Where shall we live?"
My claim is that the teachings of pure religion, as taught by Lord Jesus as well as Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, make the case for a radical transformation of consciousness that leads us beyond the specific concern with land but, ultimately, includes land and all its bounty as part of our rightful heritage when we finally awaken Christ the Son within our hearts. That is, groundedness is naturally and even automatically included in the spiritual pursuit, because that pursuit is the very purpose of life on this planet.
Any thoughts you may have will be most welcome. But please... don't just say "I don't buy that"! :D
I am curious about your comment in fn. 2 about First Things. I read the magazine but either not closely enough or for enough time to have picked up on the difference you note. What is it? Thanks, Andy