Searching for God # 154

 The inference that this scribe drew when juxtaposing Tolstoy’s words with those of Faulkner, the former on the fundamental, inexorable equality of all human beings “known” inherently by everyone, the latter that man will not only endure but will prevail because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance may have jolted some readers. What does some ‘inherent’ (even if unconscious) awareness of some deep and profound, and life-defining precept have to do with having a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance, if anything? 

The issue may have some light shed upon it, for some, by the words missing from yesterday’s quote from Faulkner: 

Included in the last post:  

He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in the workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed—love and honor and pity, and pride and compassion and sacrifice. 

Omitted from last post: (sentence immediately following the above) 

Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands. Until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. 

Obviously, Faulkner speaks directly to and about ‘writers’....and yet....who of us cannot identify with the vacuity of a culture in which fear dominates, in which lust eclipses love, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, when victories are ‘without hope’ and worst of all, (victories) without pity or compassion, where much writing (metaphorically extended into public discourse, public debate, and public consciousness) is ‘of the glands, not the heart’???  

The dominance of what psychologists call ‘extrinsic controls’ or external locus of control’...(the former refers to when a person’s behavior and choices are directed, shaped by or regulated by external forces, not internal desires...and the latter, where a person believes that outside factors like fate, luck, authority figures and/or social systems dictate what happens to them rather than their own effort) literally, metaphorically, epistemologically eclipses the ‘inner life’ of the soul/spirit, which, although Faulkner might frame it as the work of writers, today, we are all complicit as ‘writers’ of our shared, cultural, environmental, perceptual, cognitive and even epistemological universe. 

This notion ‘saving the world’ (from sabotaging ourselves) does not originate in this space. “It’ walks on the shoulders of thinkers, believers, pilgrims, shamans and even priests far more insightful, creative, imaginative and even caring than this scribe. Crossing most of the major world religions, there are individuals whose footprints are embedded, indelibly, and inspiringly, in the ‘sands of time’ for all of us to reclaim, to elevate, to refine and most importantly to imagine how to incarnate.  

Bonhoeffer’s ‘stellvertretung’ being for others, for him means following Jesus means living a life turned outward for others. And that includes responsibility and bearing guilt or suffering for the sake of other people in concrete historical moments. Conceiving his notion as ‘religionless Christianity,’ Bonhoeffer advocated the stripping away of inward-looking, self-serving religious rituals and private spirituality so the church could bear witness to Christ’s claim over the entirety of existence. (From AI) 

Another similar perspective comes from the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, in a letter, written in August 2006 to then president George W. Bush, immediately after a dream of his dead brother who told him, ‘Let’s go home together,’ and after he had thought about the situation in the Middle East (Iraq war?) and then cried, excerpted from plumvillage.org: 

Mr. President, I think that if you could allow yourself to cry like I did this morning, you will feel much better. It is our brothers that we kill over there. They are out brothers, God tells us so, and we also know it. They may not see us as brothers because of their anger, their misunderstanding, and their discrimination. But with some awakening, we can see things in a different way, and this will allow us to respond differently to the situation, I trust God in you; I trust Buddha nature in you. 

Islam, too, holds high a similar holistic vision of compassion. From the website islamOnline.net, in a piece entitled, Mercy in Islam: A Holistic Vision of Compassion, we read: 

The Islamic concept of Mercy in Islam (Rahmah) is holistic, stressing the profound interconnectedness of all creation with itself and with the Creator. While mercy is often defined simply as the willingness to forgive or not to punish, Spiritual Resilience in Islam gives it a much deeper meaning. It is an active, vital force that permeates every aspect of a Muslim’s life. Allah’s mercy is seen in the very air we breathe, the warmth of the sun, and the water that sustains life. An entire chapter of the Quran after Allah’s divine attribute Ar-Raham (The Most Gracious) in the phrase ‘In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the Most Merciful’ begins 113 chapters of the Holy Book. This constant repetition is a spiritual anchor, reminding the believer that no matter the trial, the overarching reality is one of endless grace. Allah assures us that even the greatest sins are covered by His rule of mercy for those who repent. This is the ultimate source of resilience: the knowledge that our Lord is At-Tawab (The Granter of Repentance). 

From the website, chabad.org, under the title ‘What is Tikkun Olam, by Tzvi Freeman, we read:’ 

Tikkun Olam: In Jewish teachings, any activity that improves the world, bringing it closer to the harmonious state for which it was created. Tikkun Olam implies that while the world is innately good, its Creator purposely left room for us to improve upon His work. All human activities are opportunities to fulfil this mission, and every human being—child or adult student or entrepreneur, industrialist or artist, caregiver of salesperson, political activist of environmentalist, or just another one of us struggling to keep afloat. Tikkun is often translated as repair. But in the Hebrew Bible and in the early code of Jewish law called Mishnah, it has a range of meanings: improve, fix, prepare, set up or just ‘do something with..’ Tikkun could be used to describe straightening a crooked rod, maintaining a roadway, cutting fingernails, setting a table, or devising a parable to explain a difficult idea. Olam in Biblical Hebrew connotes all of time. In later Hebrew, it came to mean the world. So tikkun olam literally means to do something with the world that will not only fix any damage, but also improve upon it, preparing it to enter the ultimate state for which it was created. 

From WisdomLib.org, in a piece entitled, ‘Significance of Universal liberation (from a Hindu perspective) we read: 

Universal liberation is a concept found in both Vaisheshika and Mahayana philosophies. In Vaisheshika, it signifies that true knowledge can lead all beings to freedom from ignorance. Meanwhile, Mahayana highlights the belief that every being inherently possesses the potential to be liberated from suffering. Both interpretations emphasize a path toward freedom and enlightenment of knowledge and the alleviation of suffering. Universal liberation in Hinduism signifies the transformative power of true knowledge, which can liberate all beings from ignorance, fostering a collective state of enlightenment and freedom. 

From the website, renew.org, in a piece entitled, N.T. Wright* on the Gospel: Swinging the Pendulum too Far? By John Whittaker, we read: 

Much of Wright’s efforts when teaching about the gospel have been to clear up common misunderstandings about the gospel in modern Christianity. For example, it is common to talk about sharing the gospel in the church today, and more often than not, sharing the gospel refers to giving someone the plan of salvation (usually in terms of sin, forgiveness and going to heaven). Wright reminds us very simply, however, that the gospel si good news, not good advice, and news is about something that happened. So most precisely, the gospel is about what happened to Jesus and through Jesus. Another common misunderstanding Wright steadfastly seeks to clear up—perhaps one of the most well-known and staunchest themes of his writings—is that the goal of God’s saving work in Christ is ‘not going to heaven when you die’; rather it is new creation, specifically resurrection and a new heavens and new earth. 

*N.T. Wright is an English New Testament scholar, Pauling theologian and Anglican bishop of Durham. He is presently senior research fellow, University of Oxford. 

How could a montage of views about ‘saving the world’ ignore or omit, although it may be difficult for some readers (including this scribe) to approach, Augustine’s City of God? 

From thegospelcoalition.org, in a piece entitled, A Reading Plan for Augustine’s The City of God, by Justin Taylor, Novemb4er 5, 2013, we read: 

Augustine was Christianity’s first great political thinker. His seminal work, The City of God, (full title: De Civitate Dei contra Paganos= The City of God against the Pagans), as Greg Foster writes.: 

Is ‘the first real masterpiece of Christian political thought. Its analysis of the nature of politics has been one of the most prominent influences in Christian thinking, particularly in the West, in every era from its publication down to the present day. It is probably the most important work of Christian political thought even produced. In the book Augustine contrasts the city of God (civitas Dei) with the city of the world (civitas terrena). The ‘city’ metaphors refer to people or groups or societies comprised of like-minded individuals. The two peoples are fundamentally distinguished by their two kinds of love: ‘the earthly city was created by self-love reaching the point of contempt for God, the Heavenly City by the love of carried as far as contempt of self. The fallen, earthly community is led by the flesh; the redeemed, other-worldly people by the Spirit. The earthly city seeks its good only in the created world, while the heavenly city seeks its highest good in God. The earthly city has a singular citizenship, while the heavenly city has a dual citizenship. The City of God must be read against the backdrop of the sacking of Rome, where critics argued that Rome fell after it embraced Christianity and lost the protection of the gods. Augustine argued that the pagan critics were defining goodness on the basis of their own desires, rather than the true definition which sees that the ultimate good is found in God alone. 

Writing as one of the Liberation Theologians of Latin America, in his work, Jesus Christ Liberator, Leonardo Boff, in a chapter entitled, Sense, Imagination, Originality, under a sub-head that reads, ‘Conclusion: The Theological Relevance of the Comportment of Jesus,’ writes these impassioned words: 

Interest in the attitudes and comportment of the historical Jesus begins with the presupposition that in him is revealed that which is most divine in persons and most human in God. Therefore, what emerged and was expressed in Jesus ought to emerge and be expressed also in his followers: complete openness to God and others; indiscriminate love without limits; a critical spirit in confronting the current social and religious situation because the situation does not incarnate the will of God in a pure and straightforward manner; a critical spirit that cultivates creative imagination, which in the name of love and liberty of the children of God challenges cultural structures; and giving primacy to persons over things, which belong to and exist for persons.....He de-theologizes religion, making people search for the will of God not only in holy books but principally in daily life; he demythologizes religious language, using the expression of our common experiences; he deritualizes piety, insisting that one is always before God and not only when one goes to the temple to pray; he emancipates the message of God from its connection to one religious community and directs it to all people of good will; and finally he secularizes the means of salvation, making the sacrament of the ‘other’ a determining element for entry in to the kingdom of God. (p. 97-98) 

We are all invited to join a path on the shoulders of these and others, among them feminist theologians like Rosemary Radford Reither. From americamagazine.org, in a piece entitled, Remembering Rosemary Radford Reither, a feminist theologian who challenged what it means to be a ‘good Catholic’ by Susan A. Ross, June 9, 2022, we read: 

(In 1975) Rosemary Reuther published New Woman, Nee Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation, a landmark book, that, as she wrote in the preface, ‘tried to show that all these ideologies (sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, the ecological crisis0 are the cultural superstructure for a system of male domination which is socioeconomic and systemic in character....(S)he once observed to me that she didn’t pay too much attention to the homilies (in Catholic services), given the poor quality of much Catholic preaching. What was important for her was the shared presence of the body of Christ in the community. 

Is cultural, intellectual, political, ideological, psychological division, too, all a part of the cultural superstructure for a system of male domination which is socioeconomic and systemic in character, in which and from which all religions, all faith communities, all ethnicities and all men, women and children everywhere have to be liberated?