Faith in Time of War
In 1953, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote an essay entitled, “The Agony of Our Age: A World That Is Asphyxiating,” in which he pointed out that after eons of slow expansion, the human species has entered a phase of compression. Every part of the globe is now inhabited by the human species, and we are confronted by a new Earth reality: limited natural resources and an expanding population.
The internet and mass media have shrunk the globe even further by seamlessly linking minds across national borders and across different languages and cultures. So, on one hand, we have a rich variety of human persons linked by common interests, and on the other hand, an expanding population competing for limited resources and land. This flood of sheer humanity, Teilhard wrote, is seeping through every fissure and we are becoming enervated both intellectually and physically.
Despite our networked world, we find ourselves in a disagreeable closeness of interaction; a continual friction between individuals who are alien or hostile to one another; a mechanization of persons in the corporate collective mentality of big business; and the increasing insecurity of daily life with national threats of terrorism and nuclear war. Our capacity to breathe freely has become severely compromised.Teilhard wrote:
Just like a train in the rush hour — the earth is coming to be a place on which we simply cannot breathe. And this asphyxiation explains the violent methods employed by nations and individuals in their attempt to break loose and to preserve, by isolation, their customs, their language and their country. A useless attempt, moreover, since passengers continue to pile into the railway carriage.
Instead of being exasperated by these nuisances from which we all suffer, or waiting vaguely for things to settle down, would we not do better to ask ourselves whether, as a matter of solid experiential fact, there may not possibly be, first, a reassuring explanation of what is going on, and secondly, an acceptable issue to it?
Indeed, what is going on? This is the question we are asking ourselves around the globe today. Teilhard thought we needed to reframe our question. Instead of asking, “what is happening?”, we should ask, “what lies ahead?” For the one thing we hold together, on every continent and in every language, is the future. Evolution is the description of cosmic life open to the future.
Evolution is another way of speaking about change and complexity. Life is dynamic and moving toward something more: eppur si muove, as Teilhard wrote. All life is changing, including divine life. God is changing and we are changing. And it is precisely because God is changing that we are changing; and because we are changing, God is changing. This fundamental reality of change, embraced by process thinkers but rejected by Catholic theologians, must awaken us to a new reality. The insistence on divine and human essentialism (as if we actually knew what nature is), which both monotheistic religions and political systems live by, is killing us. New emergent capacities in nature, such as hybridization, show us that there are no essential natures. Rather, to live in an evolutionary spirit is to let go of structures that prevent convergence and a deepening of consciousness, and assume new structures that are consonant with creativity, inspiration and development. Alfred North Whitehead noted in the early 20th century that creativity is the ultimate principle of life, including God’s life, an idea rejected by Catholic theology. However, without creativity and novelty in nature, we humans would simply not exist.
Evolution requires trust in the process of life itself; from a faith perspective, there is a power at the heart of life that is divine and lovable. In a sense, we are challenged to lean into life’s changing patterns and attend to the new patterns emerging in our midst.To live in openness to the future is to live with a sense of creativity and participation; to make wholes out of partials, to risk, get involved, challenge what is static and fixed by developing new models of practice and beliefs that energize life in God.
The fact is, we have not accepted evolution as our meta-story. We treat evolution as a conversational theory or a specialty of science. The lack of integration between science, philosophy and religion has created a fractured earth. Politically, we have fiefdoms and kingdoms; socially, we have tribes and cults; religiously, we have hierarchies and patriarchies. There is no system that supports and sustains cosmic evolution. One of the reasons is simply an inadequate grasp of evolution. The term itself frightens people, as if evolution renders us less human or less special as human. We do not talk in terms of evolution, nor do we think in terms of evolution. Our everyday lives are conceived as static and immutable, as they always have been or should be. However, fixity is contrary to the fundamental principles of nature itself. The process of evolution reveals nature to be in a constant flux of openness to new forms, new relationships and new processes that not only sustain but optimize life in the face of environmental changes. The implicit law of evolution is this: life seeks more life. There is a constant urge in nature to transcend toward higher levels of relationality (complexity), and with higher levels of relationships emerge higher levels of consciousness. Today, we have reached a complex level of global consciousness operating on very old systems that cannot support it.
While evolution is pressing in the direction of convergence and globalization, the political powers of the world are resisting convergence and fighting to maintain autonomy. Patriarchy is threatened by relationality; that is, patriarchy is anti-evolution. Patriarchs and oligarchs will muster power at all costs to maintain control. Patriarchal anti-evolutionists want to remain stable, fixed, tribal and nationalistic.They reject convergence, which includes shared space, shared resources, shared policies and shared power. However, in Teilhard’s view, we must converge or we will annihilate ourselves.
This is our threshold moment, and we need to get on board with evolution. If we get nothing else straight about our present moment, it should be this: Stability is an illusion; the only real stability is the future. Thomas Berry summed up the problem of our age this way: “We will go into the future as a single sacred community, or we will all perish in the desert.” We are starting to feel the effects of perishing in the desert. If we are to overcome our anxiety and doubt about the future, we must trust the power of divine love in our midst. How can we best consolidate our efforts and come together for that which lies before us, the future, into which we are being fearfully but irresistibly drawn? This is the true test of our faith, not only faith in God but faith in the world; for there is no God without world. When God and world are separated, or when we place God “above” and earth “below,” then we make ourselves ripe for extinction. Without the living God in the heart of matter, we are left with no other choice than to become gods, and human gods are deadly. It is time to resist every patriarchal institution and to creatively advance with new models of religion, education, politics and culture. If we can invent robotic cars and send humans to the moon, then we can reorganize and reinvent ourselves. God is inviting us to this challenge and we must respond.
You can find a Spanish translation of that article here
View print-friendly version
22 Comments
Related Posts
Trinity and Personhood
I have been teaching a graduate course on the Trinity this semester and it has impelled me to think anew about the Trinity and what the implications of the Trinity…
Evolution is a process of love. To say there are ” no essential natures ” is a statement to the incredible power of convergence. Who knows what may come in the future? Right now, I cannot foresee any of the “sacred cows”, like breath and heart beat, going away. However, I do know that everyday exciting and creative unions are expanding our horizons of god while some do there best to destroy the promise of this tomorrow.
Why? Fear. Greed. Love of the material. I call it “Failure to launch”. Failure to launch out of me and into we.
[…] read a simple two page article, Faith in Time of War: https://christogenesis.org/faith-in-time-of-war/ Hear world renowned theologian and Franciscan Sister Ilia Delio challenge us to keep the faith in […]
It’s estimated that the human population can only reach approximately 11 billion. We’re born, we have time and we die. We are not going to saturate the earth like so many doomsday movies depict. When we talk about “future” we’re not simply talking about the future of collective humanity, the planet or even the universe. Something incredible occurred when beings evolved onto the scene (and in the same way we don’t know what nature is, we don’t know what evolution is). The evolving 14.5 billions year old Universe stepped out of itself. But we are not simply the Universe becoming conscious of itself. We are also a myriad of tiny universes that are both separate and fundamentally one at the same time. So any talk of collectivism must take this into account. In other words, the future of these tiny universes is also a very being part of the story. Death is not the end of that story. But this does not seem to be taken into account. It seems that we are being presented with a choice, a false dichotomy. Either we are one and therefore in opposition to those who think we are separate (or even those who simply think we are both one and separate) or we are separate and in competition with each other and the Universe.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a diversity of tribes. Nor do I think there is anything anti-evolution about recognising that there are fundamental building blocks and hierarchies of reality that don’t change. A seed does not change in the sense that it becomes a rock or a bird. It changes in the sense that it grows into what it fundamentally is in potentiality. In some ways the idea of collectivism is anti-evolution. When you live in a community understanding your separateness as well as you’re oneness is fundamental to relationship. Understanding your separateness requires understanding where you stop and others begin and vice versa. I think the idea of collectivism is something that can be used by the powerful to control in much the same way that climate change is often used to make money.
Thank you Ernie Tamminga. I really appreciate your reply and helpful perspective! Ancient Scripture does teach that no one can see the face of God and live. Then, St Paul taught me that I see dimly now as in a mirror, but one day I will see the Face of God and live. At that time, the dim mirror will be gone, we will have life to the fullest, our joy will be complete because we see our God as He is. This is one of the promises of Jesus.
God, Love is the driveshaft of all that is. Yes, this Force, this Being appears to change but It is really being gradually unveiled for what It truly is and has been and will always be. The veil drops as Love draws all things to Itself, as Jesus proclaimed. It is not God, but we who will be a new creation, capable to stand in the presence of the Energy, the Beauty, the Love at the heart of creation. So, it is we not God but we who are changing as He continues to create in us and through us.
That’s at least how I see it. This is one of the reasons why I have this intuitive sense that it is error to think that God, Love changes. Either way, each of our perspectives is beautiful and hopeful. Blessings to you Ernie!
My son, who is deeply commited to his faith, shared his thoughts with me about your article, which I sahred with him. These are his comments:
“Several things came to mind as I read the article. The most glaring is the fact that I don’t think she ever explains why classical theistic paradigms either a.) do not correspond to modern scientific models of the world and b.) doesn’t explain how a classical theistic, phenomenological perspective in any way directly contradicts what modern scientific models observe. So I finished the article, and I got a general sense of what she means by open theism, but I didn’t come away convinced that it is more harmonious with modern science and that, by extension, classical theism contradicts modern science because, well, she didn’t actually address it in the body of her article.
Another rather curious thing was that quite literally everything she says that makes open theism distinct from classical theism simply isn’t the case, in the sense that nothing she wrote is new, novel, or unexplored territory. Her definition of open theism is an aspect and forms part of what we consider classical theism both in Western understandings of God as found in Christianity (with the likes of Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius, and the Capadocians), Judaism, and Islam (seen very clearly in Ibn Arabi’s philosophy of the unity of being and Surhawardi’s Illuminationism), as well as what we see in East asian religions’ views of Brahman particularly explicated in the great Hindu Vedantic philsophers like Adi Sankaracharya and Sri Ramanuja.
The part that seems in many ways most criminal is the seeming lack of understanding that of course classical theism and modern science won’t “agree” on things, but in pretty much every instance not on a lack of intellectual rigor on the part of the former, but rather due to the intrinsic limitations of both ways of observing the world. Religion and spirituality might make “creation stories” but it would be absurd to presume that people who wrote them, and those who read them after, thought that they were providing a mechanical description of the unfolding of events of creation. In fact, it’s wildly anachronistic to presume that ancient authors even had our own post-enlightenment modern sense of a mechanical materialist world-view. In the same vein, by speaking of modern science as if it has provided sufficient metaphysical answers to spiritual realities is equally folly. Science cannot provide meaning to the world, how could it? Science, by virtue of it’s empirical limitations can only provide you data about observations, but you can’t craft a story out of that, per se, that requires an additional set of metaphysical criteria that base material/mechanical observations quite literally cannot provide. And that’s good! Modern science allows for a mechanical view of the world that is useful when creating new technology or medicine. However, if we ask the question “Why does water boil” science’s answer will be “Because there is an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules causing a phase change from liquid to gas” while the “religious” answer will be “Because I wanted to make a cup of tea.” Those are both true, but obviously they’re answering two different questions as well.
In an effort to create something new, it mostly seems like the author has taken an aspect of classical theism, namely, that God cannot be understood in a vacuum but rather as a creative dynamic reality that we consistently engage with (something that is purely obvious once you realize that God isn’t some “super-being” out there in the sky but is rather Being, relationality, love, mercy, justice itself, while at the same time also not those things, and yet must also be personal because that’s the only way you can come to truly know [gnosis not epistemes] something), and labeled it as though it is in direct opposition to the classical theist perspective, which just seems… ridiculous?
A fine article, but erecting divisions between world-views where none exist is simply not something I find appealing.”
I asked him if he would not mind that I share his thoughts/comments with you and he accepted. So, his information is below. Thank you, Pastor Eliezer
[…] en tiempos de guerra” “Faith in Time of War” by Ilia Delio translated by Juan V. Fernandez de la […]
In response to Barbara Ciaramella: Love changes every time it touches another heart. Love grows continually and becomes deeper and more magnificent. God in God’s fullness does not change, but our experience of God changes continually as it grows, and our experience of God is God-for-us, since no one can look directly into the face of God. In this way, God changes every time God touches another soul, heart and mind.
I needed the synthesis of what Ilia said. All the components of WE are addressed. I need to be able to see WE as a collective in evolutionary Chistogenesis. We are sacred, fluid, ever present energy working actively for all the values that support the welfare of earth and it’s inhabitants. Yes we make known our awareness and expose the elements tearing down earth and all inhabitants. We also need the wisdom to help people value life. There is a huge difference between recognizing what needs to be done, and getting people to readily alter the use of their resources. As Jesus taught “ For those who have ears to hear.” ilia is a prophet and I have been valuing all the ways she has been able to teach, as she has always connected to my heart, but I was open, ready. She was, is new wine skins. In my nursing background I worked with developing algorithms, by the time I was retiring we were using them in psychiatric hospitalization. We needed to show patterns of improvement that reflected “Empirical Evidence” in order for the hospital and Home Health to receive reimbursement for our services. This is very difficult to do depending on the chronicity of an individuals status as for in some mental illnesses acute episodes can come on quickly and spiral fast with slow recovery, now jails are often the alternative. I was retiring at a time when hospitals were shedding their mental heath units. I was so flummoxed over how we were going to assist these people as Health Care was treating them like step great grandchildren, in other words, never able to quite get to them. ALANON was not funded, and needs were not being met. I started reading Ken Wilber, for, at the time I was really hungry to understand systems theory and how it was interconnected with all. No matter whatever ones take on Ken is, none can deny how he tied together the wisdom writers work from so many many fields. You saw many writers beginning to make sure they recognized the Quadrants in their writings. Parts of his theory are taught in college classrooms everywhere. Ilia, in addition to her many charisms has a system theories mind. I ‘m not just talking knowledge base but she has the faith and development stage to SEE Systems, to see the patterns, as many of her readers do. People like me need that to be able to reflect on it and integrate systems. The frightening element is that wealth has a very heavy hand and yes the patterns in our leadership are heavy handed. Whether this is the place or not I do proclaim our present president is a blessing. What I’m trying to say, we need to remain open, work in faith on ways to contribute in action and resources. Stay connected and remember, vertical time, horizontal time is always sacred in the Now and we are all eternally here Now. Be courageous, love generously. Follow your practice daily. Make the time. Make sure the people around you know it is the same as air, food, water and sleep. Take charge of
Your silence.
Scripture says “I am the Lord. I do not change.” (Malachi 3:6). We also know that God is Love. If God is Love and Love does not change, in what context are you saying that God is changing also?
A plague on both their houses? Start a war, invade and Russia is wrong. Defend the victim country and Ukraine is wrong, a purist would say. Pacifists in Myanmar are right not to have resisted Chinese invasion and occupation. They are not free, though alive. Right or wrong, all are loved and forgiven by God, as they do not know better, are not as wise as they ought to be. Christ told Julian of Norwich not to be troubled by the prevalence of evil in her time, including long brutal wars and a massively fatal plague, because God blesses everyone and every thing. She says in conclusion, all will be well. Peace.