Fr. Ramon Echica,
our Dean of Academic Studies and our professor for Creation-Eschatology course
at Seminario Mayor de San Carlos, Cebu, once asked me to review the article
entitled, The World as the Body of God: A
Panentheistic Metaphor by Keith Ward. Here I would like to share my ideas
and reflections. Feel free to critique and react.
My Summary of
the article:
Keith Ward
as he tries to explain his panentheistic
view of God utilizes philosophies of east and west that can be classified under
the same title of panentheism. Ramanuja, the 12th century
Indian philosopher whose doctrine is closest and in fact, associated to the
contention that the world is the body of God is what he presented first. For
this Indian thinker the ultimate reality (Brahman),
individuals and the entire cosmos are identical. According to this philosophy,
the cause, which is the ultimate self, the Brahman
is the same with the effects which is the world. Thus, God who is the cause is
the same with the world which is its effect. Hence, God and the world are made
up of the same sort of thing and stuff, since everything arises from the God
and so everything must be contained in the divine being. Then, God and the
world are one. Yet, this philosophy maintains that God is immaterial being in
whom, by nature of his being necessitates a body to express itself. As a
result, the world is the material expression of the Brahman. Even though, this God necessitates a world as a body to
express itself, God as the ultimate self is still in complete control of the
body, the world. In like manner that of human self and of human body when the
self is in control of the body. To maintain this view, God as the ultimate self
is therefore in complete control of the body, the world.
However, Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German Philosopher cannot follow
this doctrine that the world is the body of God despite his adherence to many
contentions of the Indian thinker. They differ on the notion of body and self.
For Hegel, if the body and self exist together it’s like saying, that the self
is ‘enfleshed’ and that they cannot be separated. To say it simply that the
world is the body of God is like saying Hegel explains, the world is God. If
that is so, since the world is material and limited then God can be limited also
in space and time, corrosion and suffering. Thus, the world cannot be the body
of God. But Hegel has another panentheistic
view. He said God is ever present in the process of history of the universe.
God expresses and includes some part of his divine being with the whole
temporal process of the history. He further said that God’s infiniteness
excludes nothing and then, God includes the whole cosmos and thus becomes part
of what God essentially is. For this, Hegel said God is incomplete without some
world which has become inevitable of his divine self-expression and part of his
divine perfection. For Hegel God’s perfection includes change, and the values
of creativity, action and relationship which only change makes possible. With
regards to the relation of God and of human being, the solution that Hegel
presented is that of compatibilism.
He is saying that God’s divine determinism is compatible that of human freedom.
A
more contemporary philosophical thought of panentheism
of A. N. Whitehead and
post-Hegelians thinkers was also dealt with. For Whitehead, God is the result
of the decisions of the millions of atomic entities which constitute the
universe. Hence, God cannot exist and incomplete in his existence without the
universe, even though he still exists in his primordial nature. In this line of
thinking, the world is not the means of divine expression of God but the world
constitutes and even creates the consequential nature of God. Just like, said
Whitehead, the body constitutes, even creates the self.
This
contention and/or philosophical thought that the world is the body of God have
brought at least four different debates about the nature of God among the
circles of philosophers in the contemporary time. First of these debates is the
perfection of God that was claimed to be beyond the dualities of good and evil.
Second is the question on necessary creation since God is perfect. How come a
perfect being necessitates a material world and finite beings to express his
divine and infinite self? Third is on the problem of the nature of the divine
knowledge. The fourth debate is whether the universe is the realization or the
self expression of the divine will.
The
first debate was confronted with the German philosophers like Schelling,
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche whose contention says that God exists and comes into
being after a long process of struggles, and thus God emerges from blind
necessity for they thought that to this world the ruling principle is the will
to power. The second debate however, faces the issue with process thinkers who
criticized the idea of necessary creation which affirms God's total control over
the finite beings. For process thinkers, matter exists independently of God’s
willed causality. In the question of evil process theology said it is necessary
in our universe. Regarding the nature of the divine knowledge process
philosophers said that God’s knowledge includes all the finite experiences so
that all these finite experiences became part of the whole of divine
experience. However, panentheist still asked what really the nature of the
divine knowledge is and whether these events of the world which believed to be
experienced also by God have really changed God at all. For the last debate
process theology denies this since it contradicts the idea of finite freedom or
autonomy.
Though,
for Ward the assertion that the reality of conflict, suffering and evil which
are so evident into this world are part and necessary for the divine being is
objectionable, rendering the contention that the world is the body of God
impossible. Ward said there is one form of panentheism that survive from this
objection. The Christian panentheism, in which uses the metaphor of the body
that of the ‘body of Christ.’ Here, God’s perfection realizes in personal
relationship with His created finite persons and His relationship with them
goes without restraining each freedom or dictating their actions. Accordingly,
it points to the unity or communion of being in relationship in which persons
retain their creative freedom but are open to the activity of the divine Spirit
which acts in and through them. This Christian panentheism hopes that one day
this universe or beyond it, all evils and imperfections will be eliminated and
everything will be filled with the Holy Spirit and we, thus, come in full
communion with God through Christ.
Critique
I
prefer to establish my own review by philosopher. I mean, I would like to
present my own evaluation by each philosophy that has been presented by the
author. My objection and my adherence maybe said already by the author but I
would like also to say it in my own words and understanding.
There
are many un-reconcilable thoughts of this Indian philosopher. The contention of
Ramanuja that the world is the body
of God for the reason that God by nature of His infiniteness necessitates a
body to express his divinity is somehow erratic, at least for me. Why I said
so? It’s because I cannot imagine an infinite being, perfect of itself needs a
finite being just to express His divine self. A perfect being must be stable of
itself. And the term 'necessitates' connotes that God is not perfect since he
needs something, a material form in order to manifest himself.
More
inconsistent when he claims that the whole cosmos and God are identical, since
the world is of the same stuff with God. It just like saying, according to Ramanuja, the cause is the same with
its effects and because everything arises from God, while he maintains that Brahman, the Indian name of God is
immaterial and the world is in fact remains a matter. Therefore, how God and
the world can becomes identical when God is immaterial and the world is a matter.
More so, when he pointed out that the world is the material expression of God. It
clearly made a point that they are not identical. To say also that the world
and God are one, from the reason that everything constitutes the world arises
from God, does not express the panentheistic view of God. It is much nearer to
pantheism.
Another
objectionable contention of Ramanuja is when he said that God is in complete
control of the cosmos. Just as the self of the human body knows everything what
goes with the body, so then that God as the ultimate self of the world know
everything what goes with the world. This implies that God determines
everything that will happen unto the world. This is problematic from the
vantage point of human freedom, evil and corruption in the world. If this is
so, then humans are not free. If we are not free, what are now the role of our
decision and the worth of our endeavors to make us prosper when we are already
pre-determined? Why then plan for our activities and for our future if God has
already something for us? Aren’t we then, but useless being like robots and/or
toys that moves according to whom that plays. If it is also true that God is in
complete control of the universe then why there is so much evil and corruption
into this world? Does he permit it to happen? For what reason does he allows
evil to happen?
So
much for my personal objection with Ramanuja
because in some sense I like his doctrine that the cosmos is the body of God or
at least in some respect God has share any part of his divine being into the
world. Though Ramanuja does not made
mention of what is that divine portion that God puts into the world. This
doctrine compels or at least obliged us human to take care and thus, respect
this world because we partake the same divinity with God.
I
admire almost the entire panentheistic philosophy of Hegel, when he’s saying
that God made himself present throughout the temporal process of the universe.
He maintains that even God intervenes in the course of history, God remain His
infinite being. He qualifies further his view of God’s infiniteness. He said
God’s infiniteness includes changes and values creativity, action and
relationships which change can only possible. This doctrine is so close to the
scientific explanation of evolution. It does follow that God fulfills His
divine infiniteness as we evolve. Our completion must be His as well. The locus
for this cosmic change, creativity and relationship with the humanity is the
world. Thus God deliberately decided to include the cosmos as part of his
divine expression and thus, the world was included to what God essentially is. Hegel's
difference from Ramanuja's view regarding cosmos is that God did not necessitates
the world but He 'deliberately decided' to incorporated it into His infinite
being. He freely relates himself with the cosmos without a priori need or
outside demands in order for Him to achieve something. This philosophy has
placed so much our individual value in the place of God’s divinity because we
part of His being in as much as we make our progress. This would also mean that
God can be affected by our supplications when we pray. Since He is with us in
every course of action we take.
I
have no problem also with Hegel’s idea of compatibilism. For me it’s consistent
with the Christian teaching on freedom. God has imbued on us that divine gift
which is freedom to do good, and freedom to decide for the good. Since we are
created by Him who is all good, it would be logical to say that we partake some
goodness from Him. It is also evident to all of us that we are more inclined to
doing well even for those we consider evil, even at least for their loved ones.
However,
with the problems of evils, I indeed believed it as inevitable and necessary
for us. Evil or falling short from doing goodness is inevitable because we are
finite beings. We are not infinite. Hence, we are not perfect. But it's no
excuse to condone our mistakes. These evils or mistakes are necessary to realize
our imperfection. It goes without saying that because of it we realize the need
to endeavor. We actualize our evolution by doing something for the better. For
me, we cannot talk of evolution without struggles and hard work to reach that
perfect goodness we are designed into by God.
With
due respect to Hegel, we can still notice his inconsistent view on the
perfection of God as he said that God is perfect yet without the world he would
be incomplete. He does not qualify here what he meant by incomplete viz-a-viz
perfection. For me, however saying that God is prefect is like saying that he
is complete. So, how can He be perfect yet incomplete? The world for Hegel is
God’s self-expression like that of Ramanuja, but then how come this God be
perfect of himself when he is indeed incomplete without the world? It seems God
cannot survive without the world. It goes without saying then, that God still necessitates
the world since He only fulfills His infinite being with the changes achieve in
the process of history in the world.
Another
panentheistic view of God which I personally do not adhere is that which A. N.
Whitehead’s advocated. His philosophy was based on organic atomism that
constitutes the world. With this line of reasoning he was saying that God was
made out from the decisions of the millions of atomic entities in the world. Thus,
God was made out of the world. For without the world at least according to
Whitehead, God cannot exist at all. This is like saying that God develops out
from matter. It is very un-Christian doctrine.
Still,
this philosophy claims that the world is the body of God yet the process is the
reversal with that of Ramanuja and Hegel. When the former said God was the
efficient cause of the world, the latter contends that the world causes God to
exist. Then, what happen to the sovereignty of God? It is the naturalism that
Tertullian was against of. This would suggest that the world which causes God to
exist is more powerful than God himself since He was made out of the world.
Another point of comment is, this contention is closest to pantheism, since we
all know that all matters can only beget a material form. To follow my own
logic in lieu with this thought, if the world which is matter begets God;
therefore God is also matter. And when this God thus united with material world
they become one matter. Therefore when God and the world become one matter, it
would suffice to say that the world and everything in it is God.
What
I like in the idea of Whitehead, is that God can be affected with what happen
in the world, since it gives credit the idea of close relationship between the
creator and the created. God therefore is not distance from the world.
For
the author to say that Christian panentheism has somehow surpassed all the
problems panentheism has faced seems to me inconsistent. It’s not because I do
not like it or I do not adhere it, in fact I follow it. But this has to be
qualified further. It’s so Christocentric. He present his doctrine by saying
that the body of Christ is the exact metaphor of the body of God in the world
without duly explaining how about those who do not know Christ by culture or by
religion can be in communion with God through Christ. He even does not tackle about
other creatures as part of that relationship with God. This might lead the
author to anthropocentric tendency in his presentation. It seems that other
creatures like animals and plants do not have an intrinsic value to be part of
the whole creation, since they are not part of the relationship being discussed.
He only deals with communion of persons in love in which God himself take the
lead, since God in Jesus Christ has made man. He is just saying that Christians
hope that someday everything visible and invisible both in heaven and on earth
will be gathered to the Lord through Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:10). He doesn’t also
solve the question of evil and corruption in the world. He just said in accord
with the Christian hope that God’s will and triumph will be realized in the end
and everything that is evil will be eliminated. But how about our today’s
experience of evils, why are we experiencing them? Are they inevitable and
necessary? How am I supposed to deal with them? What God has supposed to do
with these catastrophes, sufferings and pains? Misguided catechism on this
issue would result to our chaotic and bewildered understanding of those (evils)
in relation to our destiny to be in union with God in the eschaton?
The way I see it
I personally do not adhere the
contention that the world is the body of God. For the same reason that God can
be limited in space and time if he makes use of the world as His material body.
I should maintain that God is beyond anything in this world. He permeates the
world yet extends beyond it at the same time. In like manner, it would suppose
the restriction of human freedom. If the world is the body of God, therefore it
is God already expressing himself in every detail of events in the material
world. It renders our endeavors and sacrifices void. We are nothing but purely useless
creatures unless we remain usable by this creator.
I
did not doubt that God is the sole creator of the universe. But as to the issue
on how God created the world, I would prefer to stick to our Christian teaching
based on the Bible. God can create in both ways, namely by creatio ex nihilo (2 Mac. 7: 28) and creation from something (Gen. 1: 1-2). From His infinite prowess
He can do whatever He wills but as to be certain ‘how’ it should remain in the
mystery of God.
What
I certainly believed is that everything is in God (panentheism) not everything is God (pantheism). To put it in
Elizabeth Johnson's panentheistic
words "all-in-God".[1] He
has imparted unto the world His Spirit when He created it. The philosophies
above maintain that the world has contained something of the divine being. But
they have not explicitly mention what is that something that the world possessed
from the divine creator. My answer would be, the Spirit of God which Johnson
called 'Creator Spirit.' This Creator Spirit is working since the beginning of
creation. It would lead us back in communion with Him who breathes this Creator
Spirit (cf. Eph. 1:10). This Spirit, I continue, has contained the freedom for
everything and for us human, enables us to abide His divine will from time to
time.
I
knew this contention cannot escape from the problem of evil. If everything
possesses the Spirit of God there should be no evil, since God is good. With
this problem of evil and corruption into the world, I would say that it is
necessary and inevitable in the world like this. It is already part of the
divine design, integrated in the process of universal evolution. Like for
example, death. Death is intended by God to be part of the universal process of
history. But as to the ways on how and when this death would come to us that’s
we’re uncertain. It would be unthinkable to conceive a world without death. In fact,
empirical data from scientific studies would tell us that there is already
death even before human species comes into existence in this world. Thus, we
are certain now that there is death since time immemorial, maybe by way of
calamities, sickness or war. Death would come by calamities because God has
also imparted this freedom to nature. Nature as Spirited by God has also its
own decision to do something for the good of all, namely death is to regulate
the number of species and to balance our ecosystem.
Human
frailty as we know by definition, which causes moral evil, from the vantage
point of the divine law is falling short from doing for the greater good.
Nevertheless, it’s part of it. Since we have the freedom contained in the
Spirit, we are left on our own to decide. Mcbrien said, "We are free, and our freedom is, in turn, a condition which makes
some forms of moral evil possible."[2]
Yet a close scrutiny of our decision is in fact, is always oriented for good, maybe
for self or for others. Like killing, one has to decide to kill either for his
vantage, revenge or not (selfish) or for a cause that is conceived well for
others (war, campaign against terrorism). It's our free choice whether to act
in one's accord or to participate in God's will. Yet the fact of expiation,
change and resolution we are experiencing whenever we commit mistakes or from
the havoc resulting from our action is a good proof that we are intrinsically
good. It leads us to realize to do something for the better, to strive for the
greater good. Comes the evolution of human understanding of his relationship
with God, others and with nature.
Theologically,
maintaining my Christian belief, it is why the Son of God, Jesus Christ has
come to this world to give us (Christians and non-Christians) an example on how
to live a life to the full in the divine will. Mcbrien writes, "Jesus did not explain suffering. He
endured it..."[3]
Consequently, Jesus directs our freedom against evil to its proper context and
place, and brings forth its meaning in the divine plan of salvation. Our
mission therefore, is not to stop evils but to grow with Jesus, who is obedient
and faithful to the Father, who abhors and fights injustices and suffering. Evil
as we perceived it stands vis-a-vis our Christian faith as a test to pass, a challenge
to succeed. Likewise, it (evil) stands as a hardship to enthuse us to strive
for that heavenly bliss we hoped for to live after this earthly life. We have
to endure our trials while upholding our faith. For "God has promised the eternal life to those of us who remain
steadfast and faithful even in the midst of evil and suffering (James 1:12 my insertion), a kingdom where God "will wipe every tear from [our] eyes. Death
will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first
things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).[4]
We should not fear physical death
these present evils incur our body. Instead let us be vigilant for spiritual death these evils induce on
our souls when it destroys our faith in God.
By
persuading us (Christians and non-Christians) for living our life in love with
the whole of creation thus, a full life with the Father, Jesus Christ then, has
enkindled in us the Spirit we possess. He is the full and definitive expression
of the Spirit in us, thus we are called to follow Him in full freedom and love.
Let Nolan's words be our constant reminder thus, our "Full participation in the spirituality of Jesus would have to
include some experience of our oneness with the universe. Jesus'
extraordinarily profound union with God manifested itself not only in his
identification with all human beings, but also in his oneness with
nature."[5]
Since
"The whole universe is alive with
divine action and creativity."[6]
We could come to know God through the physical world. For understanding the
universe through nature and history is tantamount to knowing God all the more.
At least partially because I still believe we cannot exhaust His mystery.
However, our intellectual understanding of the universe, by the gift of
intelligence which is one the sparks of the Creator Spirit in us, should one
way or another hearten us to revere and to awe at His wonder and wisdom. Let it
be as our expression of becoming one with the creation and the creator. It
reminds me of Johnson's ecological theology which says, "the whole physical world itself is the matrix of God's gracious
indwelling."[7]
A reality with which hopefully arouse our consciousness of our ecological
responsibility. Eventually inspires us to be in communion with him, at least
with His creation and His Son in our present day, and with Him in the eschaton
with the risen Christ to whom we follow closely.
The world is not
God's body but his creation to reveal His grandeur and glory and to share His
life-giving love.
No comments:
Post a Comment