Thursday, March 04, 2010

The Remnant

I have just been listening to the wonderful New Zealand pianist Richard Farrell playing the music of Chopin and Brahms on CDs recently remastered from old Pye records. Farrell was killed on the roads of Sussex in 1958 at the age of 31. I don't remember hearing of his death (I was only eleven at the time, and anyway I thought the pipe organ the only instrument worth listening to) but I certainly feel a sense of loss now. And I can imagine the cries of anguish and despair when the news reached his native land.

And no doubt there would have been the inevitable question, "Why?" Farrell came from a good Catholic family and was educated in good Catholic schools. Given his affiliations (not to mention his talents) why was God careless to the point of criminal negligence? Why didn't he give Farrell a reasonable, indeed normal, span of life like everyone else?

These are very understandable questions, of course, but do they really accord with the evidence of our experience? What exactly is a normal life-span? I take normal here to mean usual. And in this matter usual can mean vanishingly short. Consider all those miscarriages, abortions, and infant deaths since recorded history began, then add all the young lives cut short by disease, famine, war and violence of every kind. I wouldn't be surprised if only a minority survived to celebrate their first quarter-century - if that.

So what are we to make of it all? I rather imagine that our more fundamentalist brethren would explain matters by blaming the devil. And of course, the Letter to the Hebrews describes the latter as the one having the power of death. But in Christ, God has defeated death - so what sense can we make of the continuing mayhem? How can God's purposes still be achieved despite the death and destruction which always surrounds us in this world?

Well, I have A Little Theory. So sorry. But here we go. When I was about fifteen I had a remarkable experience. All I remember of it is the way it ended: the Light (note the capital letter) which filled the room moved away through the ceiling and the ceiling itself, together with the walls, the floor and the contents of the room reappeared to view. And I was filled with the most absolute feelings of love, joy, peace and all the other good things for the next half-hour or so, after which matters slowly returned to normal.

This was during the summer holidays and I was working in the Otago University Library when it was still in the Tower Block. I remember a day or two later standing beside a stack of books (including, if I remember rightly) that all-time best-seller, 'Homing Tendencies in Migrating Turtles') and surprising myself by thinking that if Christ and this Light were one and the same, well and good. If not, I would stick with the Light.

Somewhat unusually for me, I told no one of my experience. It needed no confirmation. It didn't even need an explanation. Whatever the Light was, it was the final reality, and the final authority. It was totally self-authenticating. It had no face, it said nothing, and it gave itself no name - none of which mattered in the slightest. I had (and have) no doubt that this Light was what life was for, including  all life of whatever kind. It was obvious to me that we came into existence by the will and power of the Light and that it was the purpose of our existence to return the Light. And I knew that death was an essential part of that process, and therefore not to be feared.

I also knew immediately that the Old Gentleman on top of Mt Sinai with a long beard and a short fuse simply didn't exist - and never had. No wrath, no rage, no thunderbolts, no plagues, nothing but love, mercy and forgiveness. And truth, of course. I'm not suggesting that the Light is filtered through rose-tinted lenses, but I am saying that Master Calvin of Geneva should have read Mother Julian of Norwich before rushing into print.

It wasn't until I was ordained and in my first parish that I came across 'Life after Life' by Dr Raymond Moody, with its accounts of many Near Death Experiences, and recognised their extraordinary similarity to my own experience. And it wasn't until many years after that that I encountered the Eastern Orthodox teaching generally known as Palamism, according to which God can be (and often is) seen as light, as by St Paul on the Damascus Road. Since then I have come across many people (some of them here in Dunedin) who have had the same experience as I did, likewise without being anywhere near death. And just as it permanently transformed my life, and my understanding of the meaning and purpose of life, so it did the same for them.

Now, one of the distinguishing characteristics of this kind of thing is the way in which people find, firstly, that while it is happening, their consciousness is somehow expanded and enlarged, and secondly, they appear to enter into a kind of telepathic communication between themselves and others, based not so much on words and language but on simple shared awareness.
  
Thus we come (at long last!) to My Little Theory, which works like this. It seems likely to me that beyond the grave we shall all participate in a kind of shared consciousness to which we shall each contribute our own individual awareness, our memories and our experiences. This would mean that those who died before they could acquire such memories and experiences would not be deprived of their reality, and it would also mean that what appears now to us to be the pointless and useless suffering of (say) the inmates of Auschwitz might well be a most profound gift to the rest of us, after the model of the passion of Christ when it is seen from the Garden of the Resurrection. But it all depends on the reality of human destiny. And on a remnant (very biblical, you will note) which has undergone the experience of life in this world long enough to be able to take it into the world to come.

So that's it - at least for the moment. Outraged responses on a postcard, please. Or not.


6 comments:

  1. Not from me will a postcard come.

    http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2010/03/not-all-wisdom-resides-in-anglicans.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. A kindly Calvinist from Dunedin writes:

    I don't do outrage as it would disturb my inner hesychia; in any case, 'he orge tou theou' is perfect and just (unlike ours - is there nothing you don't get angry about, brother?) and doesn't disturb His inner blessedness. I don't have a clue how the communio sanctorum works post-mortem, but maybe the answer to puzzling and apparently pointless suffering that you refer to can be answered in some kind of Molinism and middle knowledge, because only God has knowledge of counter-factuals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thankyou Peter, I appreciate it! And Anonymous, well I'm not so sure about God's perfect and just wrath, since as Isaac the Syrian points out, God is not just at all, which should be quite a relief, even for kindly Calvinists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I also knew immediately that the Old Gentleman on top of Mt Sinai with a long beard and a short fuse simply didn't exist - and never had."
    So you don't believe in the existence of Moses, then, Carl? You're all the same, you liberal Protestants! :)
    I guess you will tell us that Jesus was misreported in Matthew 5:22, 10:28 etc as well.
    Did Jesus never say these things or was he mistaken? (Shades of Lewis's famous trilemma...)
    Isaac the Syrian was not an Apostle or an Evangelist (in the NT sense), so he shouldn't be quoted thus. Though Frank Tracy was fond of so doing.
    Of course God's mercy overrules his justice, a fact in which all Calvinists, kindly and not so kindly, have always rejoiced; but can you imagine (as the NT evidently does) that some at least will reject His offer of mercy?
    That was the point of my reference to Molinism, as a *possible strategy for answering the question of what befalls those who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Gospel.
    For an excellent presentation of the subtlety and glories of Reformed theology (and not the crude parodies it is often subject to), see Don Carson's little book 'The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God'.
    I will send you tulips on Calvin's 501st birthday.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kindly Calvinist, I see that you have fallen into the error common to those who follow the Sage of Geneva, i.e. mistaking Moses for the living God. Not for nothing did Dean Ralph Inge say something to the effect that the reformers of the more emphatic sort returned to the New Testament in the spirit of the Koran.

    And as for being a liberal protestant, well, I rather doubt that such persons believe in the Nicene Creed - minus the filoque, of course - I'm not a papalist any more than I'm an Augustinian. But when I say I believe in the Creed I'm including such important details as the Trinity, the virginal conception, the physical resurrection, the life of the world to come etc. I also believe in the appostolic succession and divine right of the episcopal order, in the eucharistic sacrifice, the real presence (as evidenced by such as Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud and Thomas Ken, not to mention John Keble and Edward Pusey. And I say five decades of the rosary every day. Not very protestant, or even very liberal, I think.

    I also believe that God has guided his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from the time of the holy Apostles until now. Not all teachers within its fold have been completely reliable, as Holy Orthodoxy has rightly noted of Augustine of Hippo. But by and large, they have all sung the same song - even such distant singers of the divine mysteries as Isaac the Syrian.

    Now, as it happens, the latter does not deny the existance of hell, and indeed says that it is very terrible. But he also says that it will last only so long as it is needed. You ask if I think human free-will can lead anyone to the permanent rejection of salvation and that (by implication) God will accept that. I hope to address the matter in my next post in a day or so.

    Meanwhile, I do not agree that Holy Scripture is a rather lengthy email from on high - the length varying according to your ecclesiastical affiliation. Yes, it may well have got some of Our Lord's words wrong, but it clearly gets enough of them right to sustain the life of the Church in this world. And then there is the matter of their interpretation. Not, I insist, their watering down, but their interpretation. Christ the Word Incarnate was a master of words as his parables and sayings prove. But they are not necessarily to be understood as though they are mathematical formulae. And I simply cannot see how Calvin can be any more than a merely intellectual guide to their significance than (say) Lloyd Geering. Every word which St Isaac wrote shows his humility and he love for God and his creatures. You could hardly say that of John Calvin. Even Augustine said that you cannot know what you do not love.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PS I forgot to say thankyou for the tulips. My apologies!

    ReplyDelete