Omni omni

Pastor: God is omni...
All: Everything!
Pastor: We are omni...
All: Nothing.

This was the chant of the people in the church that I attended on Christmas Eve in Berwyn, IL. It was not something I liked, as you may have guessed from my general dislike of omni's. In my opinion, this pastor may have just said that God is omni omni (all all), and have admitted that he was just trying to worship 'a bigger God than anyone else'. This also seems to be moving away from traditional orthodoxy, which isn't too surprising given the neglect of proper historic scholarship and teaching in the evangelical church in the US. At least, the attempt to find out how it was, rather than just trying to prove that what the church holds to now has always been held in the same way. Their view of their own theology, much like Plato's god, is an unmoved mover.

As a sidenote, I think that claiming that God is omni omni could also be linked to pantheism, but I'm sure that wasn't the (conscious) intention of that pastor.

However, there are a couple of omni's that I may like. One for God, one for us. They arise from my reading in quantum physics and cosmology respectively. Looking at the small to see the big, and the big to see the small.

First, God's omni: Omnipresent.
Cup your hands, and imagine what you are holding. Not a vacuum. Instead, there are trillions upon trillions of atoms. Remove these. Vacuum? Not yet. There's trillions of tiny 'particles' like neutrinos and invisible photons (from many sources, including the background radiation of the universe itself). Remove these. Vacuum? Almost. However, "careful investigation of this vacuum reveals the strange appearance of elementary particles in this emptiness. Even where there are no atoms, and no elementary particles, and no protons, and no photons, suddenly elementary particles will emerge. The particles simply foam into existence."
"Particles emerge from the 'vacuum'. They do not sneak in from some hiding place when we are not looking. Nor are they bits of light energy that have transformed into protons. These elementary particles crop up out of the vacuum itself - that is the simply and awesome discovery. I am asking you to contemplate a universe where, somehow, being itself arises out of a field of 'fecund emptiness'... This radical emergence takes place throughout the entire universe... The ground of the universe then is an empty fullness, a fecund nothingness." (Brian Swimme, The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos)
This fecundity, creativity, abundance, giftedness, this is God. This is how I can imagine God being omnipresent - even in the void, God is there. At the darkest depths, and the wildest places, God is bubbling forth, an over-abundance.

Now our omni: Omnicentric.
This one is too complicated for me to explain here fully. This one emerges out of Hubble's discovery of the motion of the galaxies. If we start at the earth, and move bigger in scale, we get the Solar System, the Milky Way galaxy, the Local Group (of galaxies), the Virgo Supercluster, the universe. The discovery that Hubble made is that all the other superclusters are moving away from our own, the further the faster. This puts us at the centre of the universe However, because of the theories of relativity (thanks to Einstein), it turns out that wherever you are in the universe, you are at the centre.
"For we have discovered an omnicentric evolutionary universe, a developing reality which from the beginning is centered upon itself at each place of its existence. In this universe of ours to be in existence is to be at the cosmic centre of the complexifying whole.
"If there are Hubble-like beings in the Hercules Cluster of galaxies, seven hundred million light-years away, and such creatures are pondering the universe from that perspective, they will also discover that the galaxies in the universe are moving away from them. They will thus conclude on the basis of this evidence that they are at the centre of the universe's expansion, and they will be correct." (Swimme)

What an incredible universe!


As an additional note, I prefer to use the words 'the universe' instead of 'God'. Not as an inert space where things happen, but as the active gifting and promise of all, of redemption. Universe. Uni-verse. One verse. One song. How beautiful! (See Tolkien's creation story in the Silmarillion for an incredible myth of creation-song)

Feast of the Bear

Here's a few pictures from Feast of the Bear, the annual SCA event held at Casa Loma each November. First, Grum & I in garb. He's Norse. I'm meant to be, but haven't got appropriate garb yet.
And here's Darci & I at the feast in the evening. You can probably tell from the cider (what a cool tankard!) and the smile on my face that I'm pretty merry at this point.

The Poison of Gift Cards

Americans annually spend close to $50 billion on gift cards. During the 'holiday' season alone, they are likely to spend around $20 billion. Similar nations have comparable statistics. Last year, $1 billion of gift cards were never redeemed. That means the American people charitably donate $1 billion to its largest corporations - to those who seek to entrap us in consumerism. To the worship of Mammon that our culture is so driven to.

Not only that, gift cards are effectively an interest-free loan for these corporations. They're earning large amounts of interest off that little plastic card. They're also encouraging people to go out and shop more, encouraging consumerism, and forcing people to buy things they don't really need. Really, don't we all already have enough of those things?

If you must give gifts (because I'm sure none of your friends really need them), and if you don't have the creativity to make a gift, at least have the imagination to buy a real gift for them. Show your friends that you've thought about them and have taken the risk to buy something for them that they may or may not like.

Suffice it to say, I will not be accepting any gift cards from people this year. If you give me one, I will return it. Not because I'm ungrateful, but because I refuse to participate in your worship of Mammon. Enough children have already been sacrificed.

Read more: "The best insult money can buy"

Ev(il?)angelism

I could never evangelise. Growing up I decided it couldn't be my spiritual gift, at fundamentalist Bible college (where I was 'forced' to do it for two semesters) I could never bring myself to do so, and today I would consider myself to be wasting my life and maybe even doing wrong if I were to try to convert someone to my religion (or at least to my belief system).

However, I've come to realise that I am evangelising. No, I'm not trying to convince anyone to become a Christian-Pagan, or to subscribe to a particular belief system. Instead, I'm trying to win people over to a 'me-like' way of looking at the world, -- ecological mindedness, concern for the poor and for justice, and being politically conscious and active. This realisation has come about mainly because of an email conversation I've been having for a few years with one of my Moody friends (Maureen).

However, I think that here I have failed: in one of her recent email conversations she wrote, "You're entitled to your opinion, and I'd rather not get drawn into a serious debate, especially when the opinions on either side are not going to change anytime soon." i.e. "I don't want to talk about this because I'm not going to change (and neither are you)."

Like the annoying street preacher who is constantly promising hell (see Bright Eyes, video), am I being offensive? Should I also be set fire to, because I'm doing that which my culture despises? Or is this kind of evangelism OK? Or even 'right'? I obviously think it's right because I'm doing it. Maybe I'll stop in Maureen's case, but that certainly doesn't mean I'll stop everywhere. I can't remain silent. Am I not called to speak for justice, to cry out for those who are given no voice?

Is this still evangelism? Should I stop despising those who yell 'hell' at me because I am guilty of the same evil? Am I trying to convert people to a religion of 'eco-political-justice thinking', which is just the same as trying to convert people to 'naïve-world-destroying fundamentalism'? Or is my evangelism different? Is it still-wrong-but-forgivable? Or is it what I should be doing, what I am called to do?

Becoming Evil

It seems so much theologising today is about escaping ontology. The world (in Western civilisation) has for so long been seen as a concrete, set thing, the 'way it is', or a creational structure. Now, theology is trying to escape these attempts, because we've discovered it doesn't work (or that we don't like where it leads). Theology now is concerned with be(com)ing. But as we build up this new way of thinking, talking, perceiving, we keep finding there are parts of our theory that are left as ontology.

Process theology has allowed the universe to be in a state of becoming, along with God. I've not yet found a theory of the trinity that is in a state of becoming, so that may be a future project (for someone else?). But this post is triggered by reading Jürgen Moltmann and somewhat Barry Allen (the philosopher, not the superhero).

Moltmann ontologises evil. He puts is there at the 'start', as an original part of the cosmos (almost prior to creation itself!) So my attempt now will be trying to put evil in a state of becoming.

There are many types of evil in the world, many manifestations of it. Before technological civilisation, there were less manifestations. Before humans, with their artifacts, there were less still. Before animal consciousness, there were less again. Manifestations of evil, by how I'm describing them, are to do with failing to respond to our calling, with the shirking of responsibility, with the exploitation of something that should not be exploited.

For example, it was only possible for a human to kill 100 people in a minute once explosives or machine guns were invented. It has only become possible to wipe out life on earth since the nuclear bomb. It has only become possible in the last few years to make money on such a large scale from videoing the rape of girls (through the internet). It is not yet possible (as far as I know) for humans to create a temporary black hole on the surface of the planet to completely annihilate an enemy (or whatever).

"With great power comes great responsibility." With only a little power, there's only a little. I can't be too angry at a rock in my front garden for the war in Iraq (at least, it would be unjust if I were). So, taking a somewhat big-bang-type theory, I can say that there was only a little responsibility that those initial photons were called to (I believe God's call is for all of creation). Therefore, there were not many, or at least not big, manifestations of evil. Those have increased with increased complexity.

The universe is learning what it does not like. In a similar way that humans find things they do not like (slavery, murder, rape, etc.), the universe is discovering those things too. Moving towards an eschatology, the new creation will be when the universe has got rid of those things.

Of course, there are problems with this, and I can think of a few immediately.
1) Does the universe need to discover every kind of evil before the new creation? As if there's a finite list? Because I don't want to make evil infinite, but I think I might be.
2) Have I just ontologised vulnerability, by making this the initial origin, the starting point for the universe?
3) Have I equated 'Evil' with 'Manifestations of Evil', and can this be done?

That'll do for now. Thanks for reading, I know it was rather long.

Existence!

Google has found me! It's proven: The plaosmos exists!

De-finite-ions

Just a quick post about some ideas I've been playing with (coming from my IDS class). Presented as quotable quotes - the first is the basis for the second and third.

"The problem with trying to define something is that what you are trying to define is constantly changing, and so is not finite. Describe instead. And for God's sake, use poetry!"

"Artists will always try to escape any confining definition of art. So stop arguing over the question of what is art!"

"Any definition of what it is to be human will always exclude some, unless you use a circular definition: what is human is human."

Praying to, er, God

"How then should we pray?" A question every Christian I know struggles with. I no longer pray. I don't know how. I don't know why I should. I've given up trying. Almost.

My view of God has changed. I don't even like the word 'God' any more as it has so many implications that I don't like. I've not settled on any other word and probably won't, but for now I'll use 'the divine.' But here's my question: If our view of God (the divine) has changed (theism to panentheism), should not our talk about the divine, including prayers and prayer-language, change also?

The divine I believe in is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not a being, and not masculine (at least not by traditional categories.) But all the prayer language I know is. The divine needs to be re-imagined, and all our language used to describe the divine needs changing.

So I'll start with the masculine. Catherine Keller states, "We will have to leave feminist Sunday School: getting rid of 'Him' only puts God in drag." Simply claiming that the divine is non-gendered, or that the divine 'transcends' gender is not enough. The very view of the divine that we have is of a masculine God - his power, his strength, his view of the world, etc. We need to change the way we think about the divine, but I'm not sure how to change the prayer language. So I'll move on to being.

A problem here is the first word of our prayers. "Dear God..." "Oh Christ..." "Lord..." Each of these address a being. They are words of address, intended to be used in the same way that I may address my neighbour. But the divine isn't a being. If the divine is in me, then in some way I am the divine. And so is my desk. And that tree. So maybe the entire concept of praying 'to' something is wrong.

If this is the case, then we have a problem with language itself. Language is designed for communication, for two beings to transfer ideas, meanings, thoughts. Or something like that. But if this is the case, then perhaps language is not the best (or even a possible) medium to use for prayer. But what's an alternative? Music? Physical art? Bringing to mind (as in some forms of meditation)? Glossolalia? Susanne Langer claims the word 'Hallelujah' is not language because it is not intended to transfer meaning. This is very similar to the babbling of glossolalia, and she talks about how there seems to be an innate joy humans find in making sounds with their mouth, babbling. So maybe there's something to glossolalia, something that no one else (including the divine) can understand?

An alternative to this desire (not to pray 'to' anything) would be to (somewhat) arbitrarily, temporarily divinise something, and pray to that. Hence nature worship. Hence worshipping your partner (see the Book of Common Prayer). For God is in all, and so all can be deserving of worship. Problems may come when something is divinised that shouldn't be, or when something is divinised for too long a period of time. I think the civilisation I'm in has divinised money (Christian are sometimes especially to blame here), but that's another story.

That's enough for now. Maybe I'll address omnipotence soon. And maybe I'll come to a conclusion at some point. And maybe one day I'll be able to pray again.

Why plaosmos...

So I guess I should start by explaining the name. It's obviously important to me (or I wouldn't have chosen it), and I feel it runs deep.

First, how the word came to be. I'm a theology student. I'm in a class called "The Ground of Being/The Horizon of Hope: Creation, Time and Eschatology." Kind of a long title, but if you knew my prof (Nik Ansell), you'd understand. He has a certain fascination with titles. Oh, I should probably say that I'm a full time Master's student at the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. Just in case anyone who doesn't know me ever reads this.

In this class (TGoB/THoH:CTaE) we're reading a book called The Face of the Deep: a theology of becoming by Catherine Keller (Routledge, 2003). So far in the book, Keller is basically saying that there is/was a chaos that is pre-existent, that was never created. God didn't create it, but formed it. James Joyce's Finnegans Wake (which I have not read) apparently coins the word 'chaosmos', putting together 'chaos' and 'cosmos'. I liked this. It's playing with language, in much the same way as Lewis Carroll does. I also like the idea of an uncreated chaos, but that's a story for another day.

So why not stick with 'chaosmos'? I could well have, but there were some in the class (esp. Jeff H.) who didn't like it - chaos is impersonal, neutral, completely non-ordered. Any forming out of chaos must be the ending of it, the death of it, the domination of it so that it becomes order. Good critiques, and I agree. So I had to move on. The chaos had to lose its neutrality and vulnerability. I couldn't go about my entire life seeing the forming of order to be (completely) destructive. It just didn't right true.

Which is how I came up with 'plaosmos'. This combination (of 'play' and 'chaos' and 'cosmos') takes away the neutrality. It introduces play. I'm a big fan of play. Play is infused with joy, with creativity, and with exploration. Hopefully, this blog will contain these and inspire these in others.


Another thing I joyously note is that Google comes up with no results for 'plaosmos'. And since google can't find it, it can't exist - you heard it here first! Just as proof:


I hope you enjoy reading this blog. I hope I continue to enjoy posting on it. And please, feel free to leave your comments.